17.7.04

Footnotes In The Kiosk

The new posting screen in Blogger seems to have taken care of the "unexpected changes in window size" problem that had heretofore been in the Kiosk (and as an added bonus, Blogger seems to have picked up on the fact that I prefer to start on the "Edit HTML" tab rather than the "Compose" tab). Luckily, we have a new candidate for the Kiosk. I'm not a huge fan of the posting style in which you put the first few paragraphs of your post on your main page, then you have to click "read more" to finish the post. But I can accept it when you have a really long post. What I can't accept is when all that's behind the "read more" link is footnotes. Maybe -- maybe -- this is all right when you have 20 academic-style footnotes and you say on the main page something like "click on 'read more' for the footnotes." But when I click "read more" expecting further paragraphs, but find only a single asterisked aside, then I am not a happy camper.
Stentor Danielson, 23:29,

Bush The Prophet

I must admit that I'm a bit skeptical of this quote that's going around. President Bush reportedly told a group of Amish people "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job." It's just too over-the-top while perfectly capturing our fears that Bush has a messiah complex. I think it could very easily be a misquotation (or a misspeak) of "I trust God speaks to me." That would be perfectly consistent with his previous claims to be recieving direct guidance from on high, without trying to claim the gift of prophecy.
Stentor Danielson, 15:18,

Climate Change And Global Justice

Climate change isn't really my main issue, but while I'm on the subject, Abiola Lapite has a relatively sensible view of the issue from a libertarian standpoint. It restores some of my confidence after an earlier post in which he asked whether global warming was falsifiable (the comments thread on that one did help make it clear that this wasn't just a rhetorical gambit like the creationist claim that natural selection is a tautology). He points out that there will be both winners and losers from climate change -- a point often made by proponents of action, though they do so in order to emphasize the presence of the worst losers and the implications for international justice that the unevenness of the effects raise, rather than to temper our pessimism by reminding us that there are winners. In the comments, Brad DeLong makes a typical ecological imperialism/ecological modernization argument, that industrialization will greatly benefit developing countries and that it shouldn't be restricted in the name of combatting climate change. This is more or less the logic behind the two-tiered model in the Kyoto Protocol, in which only already-industrialized countries face quantified emissions reductions targets (though the Clean Development Mechanism would allow them to meet those targets through aid and technology transfer that helps developing countries develop without increasing their emissions). DeLong concludes from this that it might be prudent to hold off on addressing climate change until China and India have caught up.

I see it in a somewhat different way (and not only because I'm skeptical of the single-trajectory model in which third world countries are all South Koreas waiting to happen). Those developing countries that have the most to gain from emissions are also generally accepted to be those most likely to be the losers from climate change. This reduces the practical pressure on the US to unilaterally reduce its emissions, as we can more easily externalize the worst effects. But it also increases the moral pressure, as it limits the degree to which third world countries can accept or reject the industrialization-climate change tradeoff for themselves. Only by reducing the first world's emissions will there be enough slack in the climate system to allow the third world to industrialize without screwing themselves over climate-wise.
Stentor Danielson, 11:10,

16.7.04

Kerry Vs. Kyoto

Yesterday I was reading Emery Roe's book Narrative Policy Analysis. He has a chapter on climate change, in which he claims that the problem with the discourse surrounding global warming is the word "global." It implies that the problem must be tackled at the global level, because countries acting on their own face a prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the commons situation -- everyone wants to be the one polluter while the rest of the world reduces their emissions in order to stabilize the climate. Roe argues that getting the whole world to agree is an impossible task, but the discourse of global warming suggests that that's the only solution, and that we may as well keep polluting until a global agreement is reached. He suggests that we ought to instead focus on the fact that most steps that would be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have an overall beneficial impact independent of their impact on climate.

Yesterday I was pretty skeptical. But today I see that John Kerry wants to give Roe's argument a boost (via Quark Soup):

Many news stories in 1997 referred to Kerry's support of Kyoto, undeterred by the Massachusetts senator's vote with 94 other senators for a resolution that directed President Clinton to not agree to a global warming pact that exempted developing nations. (Veep Al Gore ignored the Senate and agreed to a pact that exempts China, India and other developing nations from any pollution caps, while requiring the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.) At the February ed board meeting, Kerry said, "I believe there is a formula to bring the less-developed countries into this solution. And that's what you have to do. You can't have the United States of America and the developed world reducing emissions, while China and Mexico, South Korea and other countries, India just going crazy spewing about."

This is a classic American dodge. It's the same logic that Bush used to give up on Kyoto altogether. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to renegotiate, renegotiate, renegotiate. It's leadership in word rather than deed.

As by far the world's largest producer of greenhouse gasses, the US is in a unique position to act without concern for being the "sucker" in a prisoner's dilemma. What's more, we're far more able to make reductions than are India and China. China is a major greenhouse gas emitter simply because it's got so many people. Developed countries like the US, on the other hand, produce far more emissions per capita -- and are thus in the position to reduce their emissions with less negative impact. But the longer we wait, the harder the transition will be -- unless Kerry also plans to renegotiate the US's emissions targets.

Kerry claims that he'll take agressive action to stabilize the US's greenhouse gas emissions. But it's hard to square that with his position that we'll only do Kyoto if China and India do. Which is the flip, and which is the flop here?
Stentor Danielson, 16:50,

15.7.04

Children In Non-Traditional Families

(UPDATE: D'oh! I forgot to include the links the first time.)

David Morrison points out a new line of clothing for children of non-traditional families bearing the slogan "My daddy's name is donor." I shared some of his discomfort at the idea, though for different reasons. I think the slogan points in the wrong direction in terms of what constitutes parenthood. An important step in making non-traditional families legitimate is severing the link between procreation and parenthood. Your real parents are the people who raise you, nurture you, and prepare you to be a functional and independent adult. Whether they had sex or went to the lab 9 months before you were born is of much less importance. So while assigning the name "daddy" (a word much more loaded with affectionate connotation than, say, "father" or "sire") to a man who produced the sperm for you but has had little other involvement in your life seems to emphasize the role of procreation and denigrate the role of post-procreation parenting.

Morrison's main point, though, is an objection to using one's children as billboards for your own causes. I can somewhat agree with that insofar as drawing your kids into your causes is unavoidable, though the "My daddy's name is donor" shirts strike me as no more or less appropriate than the "Deanie Baby" shirts that Howard's followers put on their little ones.

Then again, those who support traditional families are not above doing the same thing. In a recent column in the New Zealand Herald (unfortunately no longer online), a single mother related her dauther's unhappiness with not having a father and used that as a basis for condemning same-sex parenting. Now, I don't know anything about their situation beyond what's in that column, so it may be that this particular child needs something that only a father, rather than a second mother (which she also lacks), can provide. The implication, though -- which surfaces in Morrison's post as well -- is that children just know what constitutes a proper family*. There's no consideration that children are especially attuned to questions of normality and fitting in, particularly when certain ways of not fitting in are stigmatized (as is the case with non-traditional families). The fact that some children are unhappy with their situation tells us nothing about whether the proper course of action is to avoid putting them in that situation, or to help them to accept and even love it (perhaps in part through clothing expressing that pride?), as many children of non-traditional families have.

Morrison goes on to quote a question submitted to the Evolved Moms site in which a lesbian mother asks for advice on circumcizing her son and keeping his genitals clean. She says that she has no aesthetic preference for or against circumcision, because "to me the penis has never exactly been a beautiful thingregardless of which way it looks." Morrison asks "how are you going to convey that you love this kid when you have decided in advance that part of him 'has never exactly been a beautiful thing?'" I imagine, though, that the same comment could be made with regard to many men. To me, "the penis has never exactly been a beautiful thing," and I've got one attached to my own body. But I don't see that opinion interfering with my own hygeine decisions, or those I would make if I had a son.

An anonymous commenter on Morrison's post takes it a step further:

he's going to grow up knowing that the reason he doesn't have a Daddy is because his Mommy doesn't like boys. And since he's a boy...

Here we see a conflation of affection with sexual affection. We slide from "not interested in romantic relationships with men" to "doesn't like men." Since my relationship with my own father was not adversely affected by the fact that he "doesn't like boys" in a romantic sense, I fail to see how this is much of an argument. If anything, it depends on the idea that a boy's sense of self-worth is tied up in the idea that his specifically and uniquely masculine qualities will be vital to raising a child of his own. If that were true -- and it's a pretty grim view of human nature -- then perhaps "it's not necessary that one parent be male" could translate into a negative statement toward boys. (You rarely hear much concern about the reverse situation -- a daughter of a gay male couple doubting her femininity because she thinks mothers are unnecessary.)

*This gets us into the meta-ethical question of inherent conscience -- the idea that deep down inside everyone knows what's right and wrong, and that children innocently express this whereas adults' consciences can be buried under social pressures and selfishness. I'm a proponent of the idea that conscience is largely learned, but I don't have room to defend that idea here.
Stentor Danielson, 12:42,

14.7.04

Kerry's Forest Plan

Kerry Proposes $100M For New Forest Corps Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry proposes cutting $100 million in annual government subsidies to the timber industry to pay for a new Forest Restoration Corps that would invest in the long-term health of national forests, his campaign said Tuesday. ... A Kerry administration would pledge to budget annually to cover all federal firefighting costs, make necessary additions to aerial firefighting fleets, and focus reduction of fuels in overstocked forests on those areas posing the most immediate threats to communities, according to the plan. Kerry would support "balanced forest management proposals and seek out input from the public rather than this extreme, one-sided approach benefiting big timber companies like the Bush administration has taken," said Sean Smith, Nevada communications director for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. -- via The Hamster

I can't find the details on Kerry's site yet, but I tentatively give my approval to anything that would cut timber subsidies and direct fire management to areas closest to homes.
Stentor Danielson, 10:39,

13.7.04

Wilderness And Charity

From time to time I've written about my uneasiness with the focus on wilderness as a means to environmental protection. Now, I'm personally a fan of wild areas. But I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the essence of saving nature is to exclude humans from it. Part of it is the fact that the existence of real wilderness is largely a myth. A big part of it is also the separation it creates between untouched natural landscapes and degraded human landscapes. It distracts us from the need to practice environmentally sustainable living everywhere, in downtown Worcester just as much as in the Adirondacks. I was reminded of this by a recent post by Hugo Schwyzer. In discussing the need to have a Christian ethic of economic activity, he says:

Indeed, I find that the more I give to church and charity, the more I begin to feel that what remains is mine to spend entirely as I will.

The alternative -- which Schwyzer understandably finds difficult to put into practice -- is to infuse all his spending decisions with a consideration of ethics. It seems that the postmodernists are onto something in pointing out the pernicious effects of creating binary categories.
Stentor Danielson, 11:57,

Same Old Nader

I wonder whether the discussion over Ralph Nader's candidacy has ever convinced anyone of anything. Discussions of Bush and Kerry have traversed a great swath of policy and strategy terrain. But I've yet to see more than a tiny handful posts on Nader that's not a rehash of the same "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" or "stay true to your principles" lines that we heard in 2000. And yet people continue to post it with this sort of earnestness, as if someone will read it and say "hey, I never thought of it that way before!"

On the other hand, the state of Nader discourse bolsters my theory that blogging isn't about convincing anyone, it's just about venting to an audience.
Stentor Danielson, 11:20,

"New Roads, Old Rhetoric"

... is the title of my latest post at Open Source Politics, which discusses how the new roadless area rule fits the larger thrust of the Bush administration's approach to environmental issues.
Stentor Danielson, 11:03,

11.7.04

Only Haters Oppose Hate Crimes Legislation

Amanda nicely summarizes the case for hate crimes legislation:

What hate crime legislation does, or should do at least, is make it also a crime to commit a crime against an individual in an attempt to intimidate an entire group or community of people. So, while killing a black man over ordinary murder-type stuff is a regular murder, killing a black man in order to remind the entire black population of a community that their lot in life is that of random, racist violence is another crime entirely. In the second case, you have committed murder, which is a crime. You have also threatened violence against an entire community, which is also a crime. In Texas, you cannot be put to death for murder alone. It must be in the commission of another crime. Hate crime legislation creates that other crime. You are guilty of murder and threatening an entire community. Murder plus a felony means the death penalty in this state.

What I must disagree with, however, is her subsequent implication that opposing hate crime legislation is evidence of racism (and sexism, homophobia, etc.). I'm not about to claim that I'm free of racism etc., but I don't think that in my case it was prejudice was a factor in my longstanding uneasiness with the idea of hate crimes legislation. Amanda assumes that the nature of the "second crime" in a hate crime situation is obvious, and that therefore anyone against hate crimes legislation is for intimidating various oppressed groups. Given that framing of the issue, it is tough to come up with justifications aside from prejudice for opposing hate crimes legislation (perhaps one would be a strong libertarianism that claims that only direct physical harm is a legitimate basis for government intervention). So her point holds some weight in the case of the friends she's mentioned who have heard her argument yet remain opposed to hate crimes legislation.

But it's not so obvious, particularly to someone who hasn't done much research on the topic, what the "second crime" in a hate crime is. My understanding prior to reading Amanda's post was that, as the name suggests, the second crime is hate. The perpetrator is being punished for killing (or raping or beating or whatever) someone, and for hating some group that the victim was a member of. Hate crimes legislation was meant, I thought, to eliminate hate either because of its inherent badness, or because it presents such a high risk of leading to additional crimes. Punishing hate is not something that I'm happy having the government do, as it opens the door to infringing on freedom of thought. In Amanda's framing of the issue, however, determining whether the perpetrator hates the victim's group is not a matter of establishing guilt, but of establishing intent -- someone who isn't racist can't have meant to intimidate all black people any more than someone who didn't want the victim dead could have meant to kill them (though perhaps there should be a category of "unintended hate crime" -- a sort of "hate manslaughter").

So I stand by my prior uneasiness about hate crimes legislation, given the framing in which I understood it. Hopefully the fact that I quickly rethought my position after reading Amanda's post demonstrates that I was not simply willfully holding onto a wrong framing in order to avoid having to take a straightforwardly racist, etc. position. And I don't think my situation is all that uncommon.
Stentor Danielson, 23:53,