Puns and us

Question: What do you call a college graduate who stays at a house that's the butt of a joke?
.
.
.
.
.
Answer: Alumn in a foil
.
.
.
(sorry)

Poison trees

Residents of Chicago are by now well aware that its school board president, Michael Scott, died a couple days ago, apparently of a suicide, although the police department is still investigating the matter. It is quite touching to see the accolades and what appears to be the true and sincere sadness expressed by the elected officials who claimed Mr. Scott as a friend.

Before the death, I knew very little about Mr. Scott, save for some accusations last summer that he might have been trying to profit from the Chicago Olympics search through some real estate deal. I bring up this accusation not to speak ill of the dead; in fact, I have no idea whether the accusation is true.

Rather, I bring it up to examine more closely a disturbing tendency that I, and perhaps almost everybody else, am guilty of: feeding our own enmity toward others. In the past months, if I had thought of Mr. Scott at all, it was that he was a member of the "Richard M. Daley machine," which ever since I moved to Chicago has progressively disgusted me. So I think the "machine" is corrupt and represents part of what is wrong with Chicago. Fine. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else is.

The point is, though, the objects of my dislike--Mr. Daley, Mr. Stroger, et al.--are humans and have the right to life, liberty and happiness as much as anyone. (I used the word "dislike" because I hope "enmity" is too strong a word. But the simplest and most honestly held emotions can escalate into something not so simple and honest.)

In the hustle and bustle of politics, of charges and counter charges, of political "crusades" against our "enemies," it's easy to go too far and forget what is important in life.

We--or at least I--should remember that. There are people, some of whom used to be close friends and others who I have never been friends with, who I dislike very strongly. It is important to resist the tendency to enmity, and if the tendency cannot be easily resisted, at least it must be acknowledged for what it is: something dangerous. If anything bad were to happen to the people I claim to dislike, I would--at least I hope I would--be saddened at that person's suffering.

The evil of enmity is that it blinds us to others' suffering. In its less pure form, it merely blinds us to the possibility of suffering. Therefore a tragic event like the death of Mr. Scott--as a result of which Mayor Daley started tearing up during a news interview--brings me back to my senses. In its purer form, enmity blinds us to suffering itself, or leads us the wrathful to rejoice in the suffering of others. That is something I would like to work against.

It is helpful to remember what William Blake wrote a couple hundred years ago:

A Poison Tree

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I watered it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with smiles,
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright.
And my foe beheld it shine.
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veiled the pole;
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

UPDATE(11-19-09): I edited this post today to clarify some things. I have also changed the title of the post.

Plausible misinterpretations

In a post a while back (here), I suggested that a student who misinterprets A. E. Houseman's poem, "Is My Team Plowing"--by saying that it suggests Houseman's belief in immortality--might have indulged in a "plausible misinterpretation." In that post, I pointed out how a student might have arrived at that interpretation. I'd like to generalize on that and suggest that instead of dismissing students' misinterpretations outright, it is helpful to find out ("interrogate") why and how students arrived at that misinterpretation.

(I am, of course, assuming that it is possible to misinterpret a poem or piece of literature--or any other "text," for that matter. I am not one of those who believes that "all interpretations are valid." To be honest, I'm not sure I know a whole lot (or even half a lot) of post-modernists or post-structuralists who really believe that, either. Even if one believes that all interpretations are valid, one ought to at least acknowledge that certain interpretations jive better than others with what is written.)

Let's take a misinterpretation that I was once guilty of. In a course on US Constitutional Law I took as an undergraduate, the professor challenged us to find any place in the document that stated that the President and Vice President must be of the same party. As there is no such statement anywhere in the document to that effect, the professor was speaking more or less rhetorically.

However, that didn't stop me from raising my hand. He called 0n me and I claimed the twelfth amendment made such a provision. The professor made me read the entire amendment aloud and told me to stop when I came across the provision that so required the President and Vice President to be of the same party. (FYI, the 12th amendment is one of the longer ones.) When I got to

...and they [electors] shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President...

I stopped, believing I had "proved" my point. Yet the professor told me to keep reading, and I had to read the whole darned thing aloud. Afterward, he challenged me where the provision was. Being a bit intimidated, I withdrew my contention that the 12th provided that the Pres and VP be of the same party.

I was, of course, wrong. There is nothing in the 12th, or any other amendment, that even recognizes the existence of political parties, let alone explicitly requires the President and Vice President to be members of the same party. But why did I say what I did?

It wasn't ignorance of the actual wording of the Constitution. I was a bit of a geek as an undergrad and had read the Constitution several times. I was also a history major and had at least a serviceable grasp of the history of the early republic era of the US.

In fact, it was my knowledge of US history that led me to believe the 12th "required" that the President and VP be of the same party. I knew that the amendment was passed and ratified in large part to avoid the spectacle of having a Vice President serve under a President he had run against in the election. In the prior way of doing things, the winner of the majority of electoral votes gained the presidency and the runner-up gained the vice presidency. Yet in 1796, the winner (John Adams) and runner-up (Thomas Jefferson) were bitter enemies. And Thomas Jefferson, whatever his virtues, did a lot to purposefully undermine the administration of his superior.

One result of the enactment of the 12th amendment was to make the election of partisan rivals to the Presidency and Vice Presidency much less likely. Once the "second party system" arose in the late 1820s and early 1830s, would-be presidents could run on what amounted to a ticket with a fellow member of the same party.

I was, I repeat, wrong in saying that the 12th required the President and VP to be of the same party. And my reasoning was faulty. But it was not wholly faulty. It was wrong to say that the 12th "required" that outcome. It was probably also wrong to say that that outcome was necessarily the result of the 12th (the idea of a party system and the actual formation of political parties were much more complicated and even antedated the 12th amendment). But I was not wholly wrong.

This particular situation was probably good for me. Anyone who knew me as an undergrad probably would know that I needed to be humbled. So I don't particularly begrudge this incident.

However, students often have reasons for arriving at the conclusions that they do, even when the conclusions are clearly wrong. Instead of dismissing those conclusions out of hand, it might be helpful to explore with the student and the class why the student arrived at the conclusion he or she did.

Irrationality and health care reform

It is probably no secret to the very small number of people who read my blog that I support the Democratic health care reforms being bandied about. Yet I sometimes fear my desire to see the reform approved clouds me from some serious objections to the plan.

I realize that the major criticisms of the plan I'm aware of--1) a mandate is somewhat problematic and 2) the plan would not really address costs--have some validity. At the same time, I refuse to listen to these criticisms, or I brush them aside in my enthusiasm to see something done that would result in most people getting insurance.

One might not know it from the quality of my writings, but I am, I believe, a very rational, systematic thinker. Yet on this issue I have a hard time being rational.

Sigh.

Is The Sun Also Rises antisemitc?....some preliminary thoughts

One of my all-time favorite novels is Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises. But one of the main characters of the novel, Robert Cohn, is built around an antisemitic stereotype, and most of the other characters indulge in antisemitic assaults against Cohn. (Hollywood's version politely excised most of the antisemitic references.) For a cataloguing of the antisemitic instances, see this website (it's not comprehensive, but it at least gives an overview).

Is it accurate to call this novel "antisemitic"? I really don't have a firm answer.

It seems to me that the antisemitism of the novel is more than just incidental. In other words, I think the story depends on the antisemitic tropes and that the characters' antisemitism is integral to who they are. The story wouldn't be the same story without the antisemitism. (In contrast, there is a little bit of anti-black racism as well. The narrator and main character, Jake Barnes, uses the "n" word several times to describe black people. In my view, those instances could probably be excised from the book without changing the main flow of the story while excising all the antisemitic references would substantially change the story.)

One of the arguments against calling the novel antisemitic--and an argument which I've read somewhere, but cannot right now find the citation for--is that Hemingway was merely detailing a group of wasp-ish people for whom antisemitism was a matter of course. By this argument, the antisemitism of the novel would be comparable to the racism in any novel about racists. If an author's characters are racist, he or she has to portray them saying racist things. And, of course, The Sun Also Rises is written in the first person, so it's hard, if not impossible to tease the racism of the narrator (Jake Barnes) from the racist message, if any, of the novel.

Still, I have a sneaking suspicion that the antisemitism in the novel is more than just a character representation. I, however, cannot put my finger on it.

How about an interim public option?

One of the objections insurance companies lob against the Public Option idea for health care reform is that it would be unfair for them to have to compete with a government-run program that would, theoretically, be able to operate at a loss.

At the same time, one of the objections they have against the "mandate," the requirement for most people to buy insurance, is that the penalties for refusing to do so aren't enough to prevent young and healthy people from simply paying the penalty unless/until they get sick, and then choosing to buy insurance, on the understanding that the penalty, as currently included in the legislation, would be lower than the price of premiums.

I have a suggestion that is meant to address both concerns: an "interim" public option.

1. Under this plan, insurance companies would still be forbidden from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and from dropping coverage.
2. However, the insurance company may make a determination that a pre-existing condition exists in someone who applies for insurance and who has not had insurance for a given period of time, say, a year.
   
3. If the insurance company makes such a determination, it could refer that person to an "interim" public plan.
   
4. Under this interim plan, the applicant for insurance will pay premiums to the insurance company he/she (the applicant) applies for, for a period of, say, 6 months or a year, but all medical coverage during that time will be provided under a government run plan.
5. After the term is up, the insurance company will have to cover the applicant
   
6. The government-run plan would be funded chiefly by payments from the penalties that are charged for not buying insurance.
7. The public option, in this case, would exist only for those in this interim period.

The advantages to this plan:

1. It answers the insurance companies' objection to the "free-rider" problem of people not buying insurance when they are healthy. (Their objection is based on the notion that healthy people do not need as many services, and they therefore fund the services required by the less healthy people.)
2. It lets the insurance companies get some advanced payments in the forms of premiums that are paid while the insured is covered under the interim plan.
   
3. It creates an incentive for the government to match its penalties with the cost of caring for people during this interim period.
   

Disadvantages and possible objections to this plan:

1. It is, in effect, a huge subsidy to the insurance industry. In the best of worlds, I would prefer some sort of modified single payer system, although I'm sure others would agree. But as it is, it's necessary to deal with the powers that be.
   
2. It must be balanced out by effective and enforceable regulations of insurance companies.
3. By itself, the plan, at least as I have outlined it, has no provision to help those who can afford no insurance. (Hopefully, the expansion of Medicaid, as provided by the Baucus Bill, would help this.)
4. It doesn't answer a possible objection to this entire plan (and a further objection along the lines of #3), an objection I have not heard others raise but that nags at me: would doctors be required to accept certain insurance or interim public option payments? If so, how would that be enforced? As I understand, for example, very few doctors accept Medicaid: would this problem continue for an interim plan?
   

Possible objections to my plan to reform the Senate

Here are some possible objections one might lodge to my plan(s) to reform the Senate (See here and here):

• Why not keep the present system of checks and balances? The Senate's current role in legislation prevents many improvident laws from passing.

My answer is really a non-answer. I am not arguing for reforming the Senate along putatively more "democratic" lines. But I am offering a way to reform it if one begins with the assumption that the Senate needs to be reformed. In other words, I have no answer. But I am stating how to do it if certain assumptions are accepted.

• The proposal to grant the Senate the power to approve or disapprove the commitment of military forces abroad wreaks havoc with the doctrine that the whole Congress ought to have the power to declare war, and therefore gives unprecedented power to the President.
  

My answer: as a practical matter, the President already has this power anyway. Despite the War Powers Act--which, if I.N.S. v. Chadha applies, would not be upheld by the Courts and would be otherwise unenforceable--the President can pretty much commit troops wherever and the Congress would not (probably) vote to discontinue funding, because doing so would be dangerous to American soldiers. Under this plan, with the retroactive approval/disapproval mechanism, the President would have to face severe consequences for committing soldiers, even though the operation might continue. This is an imperfect solution, as it does not address the notion of a "declared" war--which the US has not had since World War II--and a declared peace.

• Why even have a suspensatory veto?
  

Two reasons. First, it's a bone to throw to the Senate. Any constitutional amendment to reform the Senate would have to appeal to the Senators' institutional desire to safeguard their power. Unless an amendment is proposed by the "convention" method, 2/3 of the Senators would have to approve it. They could not propose legislation, but they could, perhaps, set up a committee to consult with the House on a measure that they would accept.

Second, the suspensatory veto could prevent improvident legislation from passing, especially if the period of suspension takes any legislation close to an election cycle. The members of the House would, in theory, have the opportunity to hear from their constituents before any bill would pass. While not perfect, this plan would work to avoid the (alleged) practice of Congress passing legislation in non-election years that would make them vulnerable during election years.

• Would the "veto" over executive orders be cumbersome?

Potentially. But that is the point, to encourage the President to consult with the Senate before making changes. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a supermajority for such a veto, say, a 3/5 or 2/3 vote. My goal is to indirectly, through the Senate, to place a check on executive power and yet at the same time allow considerable flexibility to the President to do his or her job. I am, in a sense, taking aim at the "unitary executive" doctrine espoused, among others, by Samuel Alito.

• The provision about curbing the power of the Vice President doesn't make sense.
  

This is a good objection. I guess I wanted a way to curb his or her power. The problem with the purported power of the Vice President is that much of it is non-Constitutional. Outside of his role to preside over the Senate, break tie votes, and succeed the President in an emergency, there's isn't much, constitutionally, for him to do. I'm not one of those who say we don't need a Vice President, but at the same time I'm disturbed by the fact that under my plan, it would be (slightly) easier to remove the President, only to have him replaced by his Vice President, a person who, in most cases, would probably be of a similar persuasion in regard to policy. I'd be willing to compromise on the Vice Presidency portion of the amendment, especially since I'm not sure I'd want to have it.

Update 10-27-09: I have clarified some of the language and added material.