Quotes: Television, Property, and Serious Comedians

"Don't you wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked 'brightness,' but it doesn't work." Gallagher

"My position as regards the moneyed interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily, and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property." Teddy Roosevelt

"Everything is changing. People are taking comedians seriously and politicians as a joke." Will Rogers

Sticky Situations: Religious Freedoms and Gay Rights

If you have listened to any of the often vituperative conversation surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, you have no doubt heard someone claim that giving marriage rights to homosexual couples does not infringe on the freedoms of anyone else. While in most cases I believe this is absolutely true, I think there are certain situations in which it's not so clear.

We live in a country which from its inception has heralded freedom for its citizens to exercise their religion and beliefs as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others, and this includes those who believe that homosexual love is immoral and those who believe it is beautiful. The messiness comes when one group says to the other, "I refuse to serve you because of your sexual orientation," or, "I refuse to employ you because of your religious beliefs."

I've already stated that I think same-sex marriage will be legalized across the U.S. in my lifetime. I also think that situations in which these two groups clash will most likely be decided on a case-by-case basis in the courts, using pragmatic and somewhat arbitrary justifications for the decisions made, as is the justifiable and understandable nature of our court system. I further think that most of these cases will be decided in favor of the same-sex couples if same-sex marriage is completely legalized, based on precedents already set in anti-discrimination law.

However, the truth remains that these situations are messy. If a psychologist refuses to give a same-sex couple marriage counseling, is he/she infringing on the couple's freedom? If the psychologist is fired for refusing, are her freedoms being infringed upon? Ethically, politically, morally, legally, sociologically, philosophically -- it's puzzling to say the least.

Here are ten such examples from a 2008 NPR story about this issue. If you're interested, give them a read, and try to decide what you think. In my opinion, what you believe about these issues is going to matter more and more in the years ahead.

Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

NPR: Gay Rights, Religious Liberties by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, June 16, 2008

A Century of Economic Debate in One Easy Rap Battle

In a recession, everyone starts thinking about economics, and I'm no exception. You may have heard a lot of folks out there claiming that Obama's $787 billion stimulus package is just another attempt by a liberal Democrat to increase the size of government and spend the U.S. into oblivion. The truth is naturally a little more complicated than that, and it's rooted in the ideas of a turn-of-the-century economist named John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was one of the first and most popular economists to argue that during an economic crisis, the government could flood the market with money to kick-start the economy and reverse a rapidly cumulative economic downturn. Classical economists, such as Friedrich von Hayek and later Milton Friedman, argued that the government trying to influence the market in this way would ultimately lead to inflation, cheap credit, debt, and bad investments. In the long run, classical economists argue, the market will correct itself in an efficient way without large government spending measures. Keynes famous response to the classical perspective was, "In the long run, we're all dead." How many years of unemployment are citizens willing to weather until the market corrects?

Hayek/Friedman's ideas were largely respected and adhered to in the U.S. from the late 70's until our recent crisis emerged two years ago, due in part to influential figures such as Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. But the recent economic downturn has caused a great deal of skepticism regarding the classical view, and current figures such as Obama and Paul Krugman have trumpeted Keynesian ideas once again. The debate is over a century old, and it's incredibly hard to determine whose perspective is more helpful. Keynesian economists say the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression and helped us avoid a similar disaster last year. Classical economists counter that revised monetary policy by the Fed, lower taxes and tariffs, and essentially market correction ended the Great Depression and the current stimulus package is only spiraling our debt. I tend to lean towards the classical side, but the arguments on both sides are complex, intelligent, and strong.

But now to the fun stuff. Last week a music video director from Spike TV and a popular economics professor got together and released the following video, which frames this century-long debate in the form of a hilarious rap battle between Keynes and Hayek. As white nerd rap goes, I think it takes its rightful place among such classics as Mac or PC, Lazy Sunday, White and Nerdy, and of course, Robot Cat.

Econstories.tv: "Fear the Boom and Bust"

An Apology

A few days ago I wrote a post entitled "Give the Bastards Term Limits." After thinking about it for a few days, I've decided that calling Supreme Court justices "bastards" was a pretty hypocritical move for a guy who claims to desire less invective and more understanding in our political conversation. So I've changed the title, and I'm an offering an apology here. While I disagree with the Court's decision and its potential consequences anger me, there's no need to go calling people names.

Guesswork Theory is on Twitter

For years now my pal the entrepreneurial Rob Johnson has been trying to convince me to dive into the fast-paced, breviloquent world of Twitter (thank you, thesaurus.com). Today he is one giant leap closer.

Rob cleverly took this leap by sharing my recent retrospective post about the Iraq War on his Twitter account. He then sent me a link to a site which tracks how many times someone reaches my blog post from his tweet. As of press time, fifty-eight people had done so.

Fifty-eight new readers is hard to resist. Rob presented hard evidence that I could reach a lot of new readers if I injected my blog into the Twitterverse. Long story short, I've given into the temptation. I've created a Twitter account at twitter.com/justinis, where any Twitter user can follow my blog and be informed when it's updated.

I know what you're thinking: "But Justin, Twitter is annoying!" I understand. That's why I have no plans to use this account for anything other than links to my blog posts when they are written. So if you don't use Twitter, please continue on in your blissful, Twitter-free world and don't worry about missing anything from me.

Now I'm sure Rob and other members of the Twitter faithful will argue that this is a slippery slope, that once I've had a taste of the Twitter elixir I won't be able to resist. They may be right -- but if they are, it won't be the first time Rob has opened my eyes to something on the interweb.

Top 5 Things Which Have Recently Blown My Mind

1. In 1961, the only doctor at a Russian research station in Antarctica was forced to remove his own appendix to save his life. Two other inhabitants of the station (a driver and a meteorologist) held a mirror and provided instruments. The operation was a success, and believe it or not, it's not the only one of its kind.

2. In the mixed-up world of radio personality qualifications, political pundits and best-selling authors Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are all college dropouts, while both of the jovial mechanics who host CarTalk have science degrees from MIT.

3. You walk up to the front desk in an office building and ask for a form. The person behind the desk bends down out of sight to get it, but then quickly moves aside while a different person pops back up to hand the form to you. If you're like 75% of people, you don't notice a thing.

4. There is more than enough food to feed the entire world. Our problem is distribution, not production.

5. Studies suggest you learn more by getting something wrong on a test than you do by getting it right.

Note: Apologies to Mr. Aaron Whitworth for my continuing superlative use of "mind-blowing."

Defend Democracy: Term Limits for the High Court

As you probably heard, last week the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that it is a violation of the First Amendment for Congress to limit corporate spending on political campaigns. The decision overturned thirty years of campaign finance reform legislation, including the famous bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill. As a result, there are now absolutely no limits on how much a corporation can spend on a politician's campaign. Exxon-Mobil may spend as much as it pleases to get Sarah Palin elected in 2012. In turn, the NEA or the UAW can pour as much as it wants into the Kucinich campaign should he run again in the future.

There is no question in my mind that this decision will hurt the efforts of honest candidates in favor of those who are willing to take campaign contributions in exchange for political favors once they are in office (which may or may not include Palin and Kucinich, I was just using them as examples). How can we expect anybody to be capable of launching a successful campaign against a rival who is being provided with millions of dollars from a corporate interest? It seems impossible to me, and the tragedy of this impossibility is that it wrecks the dream of what the framers of the Constitution intended: for this to be a country that was led by independent citizens with the good of their fellow Americans as their central ambition.

In addition, it baffles me how these five justices have come to the conclusion that corporations are persons, are citizens, with all the rights the Constitution affords. I suppose now that Congress is prevented from limiting their speech it follows that next week we will bestow on them the right to vote. But honestly, even if we did, that would give them less power than this terrible decision already has.

I say it baffles me, but at the same time it is woefully characteristic of a body which found that black men are property, that separate but equal is equal, that the right to privacy affords the Supreme Court the authority to decide when life begins, that it does not infringe on a citizen's rights for the government to seize his/her land and give it to private interest.

Which is why for a long time I have fervently supported the idea that Supreme Court justices should be given term limits. Those who disagree may argue that this would upset the delicate system of checks and balances that our Constitution has established, but to this I reply that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review -- the Court gave it to itself. Congress writes laws. The president can veto them. Congress can override a veto. The Supreme Court can find a law unconstitutional. Congress and the president may choose who sits on the court... every 36 years. Or Congress may attempt the near impossible task of amending the Constitution. Or Congress may not pay the Supreme Court building's electric bill. Those are the checks; good luck finding the balance.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is one over-reaching decision too many. Reversing these disastrous decisions needs to be easier. It is time for the men and women of the Supreme Court to get a little taste of American government, in the form of a six-year term. It is time to hold them accountable for the havoc they have wreaked on American democracy.

Brown vs. Cameron

On this blog I often advocate less yelling and animosity between the parties and attempt to emphasize ideas that benefit the national conversation. However, once in awhile I cannot help googling "parliament" just to watch the knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred brawls that seem to occur daily on the floor of the British legislature. I'm not sure this is the best way to make policy (and I know in the past Congress has been no different), but it's still so fun to watch!

What Netlifx Rentals Reveal About Your City

Last week the New York Times published an interactive map of Netflix rentals in major cities. After scrolling through I was struck by how this seemingly insignificant data reveal the stark, even division of Washington, DC. Interestingly enough, Erin and I live right on the dividing line.

Netlfix Rentals for Washington, DC: Rachel Getting Married

Netflix Rentals for Washington, DC: Lakeview Terrace

Quotes: Congress, Art, and the Wisdom of Youth

"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Will Rogers

"Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better." Andre Gide

"When it comes to forwarded emails, some of us are young enough to know better." Erin Scott