Mark Buchanan is far off base here. He's basically arguing that Economist pass themselves off as objective analysts when in reality they're extremely subjective. But at worst, what he's arguing is that Economists should include in their analyses the things he believes are good and bad--"social disruption of a community," democracy, political power of corporations, and income inequality. At best, he's saying Economic analysis doesn't go deep enough into the system's complexities.
A good Economist doesn't make value judgments as Buchanan wants. He's not going to say a policy is bad because it hinders democracy because that presumes that democracy is "good." A good economist might say what effect something has on democracy without mentioning whether that's good or bad. That determination is for others to make.
Buchanan's right, though, that economists focus on the more immediate effects and ignore the deeper. That's only because the complexity of the world is infinite, and the deeper you go, the harder is the analysis. Maybe economists need to do a better job describing the limits of their research, but all economists know that there could be more to the story. Indeed, economists are much better at looking at the unseen effects than most other people because that's what they're trained to do (see the Broken Window Fallacy).
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Bad Analogy II - Tom Toles
Ezra Klein thinks this Tom Toles cartoon is a perfect representation of what's going on with the Healthcare law. Bad analogies strike again!
Democrats, on their own, passed the Health Care Law. The Republicans have done nothing to harm the operations of what was passed. What the Republicans have done is refused to fix some of the clear mistakes of the bill. Also, they have refused to provide more funding than what was allocated by the bill itself.
A better (more accurate, but still critical of Republicans) cartoon would have a large, complex machine in the background, spilling oil, belching out smoke, with screws falling out of it. Problems that hinder but don't incapacitate. A Donkey is looking at it through a window, banging on the wall with a wrench, while an Elephant is just staring at it saying, "This piece of junk will never work!"
Democrats, on their own, passed the Health Care Law. The Republicans have done nothing to harm the operations of what was passed. What the Republicans have done is refused to fix some of the clear mistakes of the bill. Also, they have refused to provide more funding than what was allocated by the bill itself.
A better (more accurate, but still critical of Republicans) cartoon would have a large, complex machine in the background, spilling oil, belching out smoke, with screws falling out of it. Problems that hinder but don't incapacitate. A Donkey is looking at it through a window, banging on the wall with a wrench, while an Elephant is just staring at it saying, "This piece of junk will never work!"
Bad Analogy
Liberals have been very good at creating analogies that seemingly make their opinions look reasonable while criticizing their opponents. But often, their analogies don't reflect the actual situation.
Norman Ornstein has painted a picture to help him make the case that the Supreme Court's Voting Rights decision was wrong-headed. But it doesn't hold water.
The court has basically said, you can't more carefully scrutinize this one intersection because of its traffic patterns 40 years ago, you must treat every intersection based on today's data.
The Left has a tendency to oversimplify.
Norman Ornstein has painted a picture to help him make the case that the Supreme Court's Voting Rights decision was wrong-headed. But it doesn't hold water.
Imagine an intersection with a long history of high-speed car crashes, injuries and fatalities. Authorities put up a traffic light and a speed camera — and the accidents and injuries plummet. A few years later, authorities declare “mission accomplished” and remove the light and speed camera. No surprise, the high-speed crashes and fatalities resume almost immediately.A better analogy, one that captures the argument from the Justices, would be an intersection that 40 years ago, was extremely dangerous, so traffic control was added. This development helped the situation. Now, 40 years later, lots of things have changed--cars are safer, people may drive differently, pedestrians may be more careful, but we don't know because those traffic controls are still in place. Now, they want to add a left-turn signal, or take away a crosswalk that isn't used anymore. The neighboring intersections have extremely similar traffic patterns, actually, they're moderately more dangerous than this one, but the city government requires a year-waiting period to consider any changes for this intersection, while that intersection can be repainted over night.
The court has basically said, you can't more carefully scrutinize this one intersection because of its traffic patterns 40 years ago, you must treat every intersection based on today's data.
The Left has a tendency to oversimplify.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
United States v. Windsor - A Summary
I read through the full opinion, and here are my takeaways
Kennedy's Opinion
The best word to describe the writing is incoherent. It seems like he has two main reasons to strike down Section 3 of the DoMA: federalism and Due Process. For neither reason did he provide a logical, organized, detailed argument. He instead seemed to switch back and forth between the two reasons. He talked about how the federal government shouldn't have the power to put asunder what states have decided, and he often used emotionally charged words like humiliate and demean to describe the purpose of the legislation.
This was not a good judicial opinion. It was both poorly written and constructed. It would not convince anyone. After reading it, it seems like Kennedy wanted to strike down Section 3, and just had to offer up some defense, any defense of doing so. Kennedy also went on at length about how the only reason the legislation was passed was to consign gays into a sub-class. His not acknowledging that any other reason could exist or unwillingness to give the legislators and the President the benefit of the doubt is extremely disheartening for someone who is supposed to be learned and able to look from multiple points of view.
Roberts's Dissent
Roberts only defends the legislators and President by arguing that there were reasons other than the nefarious ones Kennedy discusses to pass the DoMA. The remainder of his dissent is an attempt to limit the scope of the majority opinion.
Scalia's Dissent
Basically, Scalia argued only that the Supreme Court should never have considered the case because the Executive branch wasn't defending it.
Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. It was persuasive (even though I don't agree), unlike Kennedy's. He was also upset with the quality of the majority's opinion, several times making tongue-in-cheek remarks.
Here are some excellent quotes.
It should be noted that Scalia's opinion would have the same effect on the plaintiff as the majority, that she would win the case, and effectively Section 3 would be struck down.
Alito's Dissent
Alito argued that Section 3 of the DoMA had a purpose other than to "demean" and "humiliate" and that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause only applies to rights that are long-lived and traditional, which gay marriage is not. They agreed with Kennedy, that the case should be heard.
My View
I don't see how giving people the state and federal benefits of marriage only if they sign a contract with someone of the opposite sex doesn't violate the fifth amendment. You're giving some people benefits that you're not giving others. I also think that the federal government does not have the right to overrule the laws of the states as to marriage.
However, I also believe that this has the same effect on multiple marriages or incestual marriages. Constitutionally, I don't see how those can continue to be outlawed.
As to Scalia's opinion, I think the Supreme Court had to get involved because Congress wanted to defend it. Congress should have as much right to defend a law they passed as the President. The Constitution gives the power to the Executive only, but I believe this was just to assign responsibility. If there was a dispute as to who should defend, then the Executive would win, but if the Executive decided it didn't want to defend it, then as Kennedy said, it would give the Executive an extra veto power.
Kennedy's Opinion
The best word to describe the writing is incoherent. It seems like he has two main reasons to strike down Section 3 of the DoMA: federalism and Due Process. For neither reason did he provide a logical, organized, detailed argument. He instead seemed to switch back and forth between the two reasons. He talked about how the federal government shouldn't have the power to put asunder what states have decided, and he often used emotionally charged words like humiliate and demean to describe the purpose of the legislation.
This was not a good judicial opinion. It was both poorly written and constructed. It would not convince anyone. After reading it, it seems like Kennedy wanted to strike down Section 3, and just had to offer up some defense, any defense of doing so. Kennedy also went on at length about how the only reason the legislation was passed was to consign gays into a sub-class. His not acknowledging that any other reason could exist or unwillingness to give the legislators and the President the benefit of the doubt is extremely disheartening for someone who is supposed to be learned and able to look from multiple points of view.
Roberts's Dissent
Roberts only defends the legislators and President by arguing that there were reasons other than the nefarious ones Kennedy discusses to pass the DoMA. The remainder of his dissent is an attempt to limit the scope of the majority opinion.
Scalia's Dissent
Basically, Scalia argued only that the Supreme Court should never have considered the case because the Executive branch wasn't defending it.
Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. It was persuasive (even though I don't agree), unlike Kennedy's. He was also upset with the quality of the majority's opinion, several times making tongue-in-cheek remarks.
Here are some excellent quotes.
It should be noted that Scalia's opinion would have the same effect on the plaintiff as the majority, that she would win the case, and effectively Section 3 would be struck down.
Alito's Dissent
Alito argued that Section 3 of the DoMA had a purpose other than to "demean" and "humiliate" and that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause only applies to rights that are long-lived and traditional, which gay marriage is not. They agreed with Kennedy, that the case should be heard.
My View
I don't see how giving people the state and federal benefits of marriage only if they sign a contract with someone of the opposite sex doesn't violate the fifth amendment. You're giving some people benefits that you're not giving others. I also think that the federal government does not have the right to overrule the laws of the states as to marriage.
However, I also believe that this has the same effect on multiple marriages or incestual marriages. Constitutionally, I don't see how those can continue to be outlawed.
As to Scalia's opinion, I think the Supreme Court had to get involved because Congress wanted to defend it. Congress should have as much right to defend a law they passed as the President. The Constitution gives the power to the Executive only, but I believe this was just to assign responsibility. If there was a dispute as to who should defend, then the Executive would win, but if the Executive decided it didn't want to defend it, then as Kennedy said, it would give the Executive an extra veto power.
United States vs. Windsor - Scalia Quotes
As I discussed, Scalia's opinion was extremely well-written. Here are some memorable lines.
"the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive's determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court's desire to blurt out its view of the law." Basically saying that the Court wanted a reason to throw out part of the DoMA and describe why.
"the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law's opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited." The key word is can. It seems to not matter what the original intent was or if it has positives along with possible negatives.
"I promise you this: the only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
"the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by 'bare...desire to harm' couples in same-sex marriages."
"the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive's determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court's desire to blurt out its view of the law." Basically saying that the Court wanted a reason to throw out part of the DoMA and describe why.
"the majority has declared open season on any law that (in the opinion of the law's opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited." The key word is can. It seems to not matter what the original intent was or if it has positives along with possible negatives.
"I promise you this: the only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
"the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by 'bare...desire to harm' couples in same-sex marriages."
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
This is not Democracy
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos (June 30, 2013), they featured temporary liberal hero Wendy Davis. Of course, these encomia shy away from the details of the issue she was filibustering.
Anyway, listening to her interview, I was struck when she said (at about 2:20 in this video) "I believe in the power of democracy." That's just a bald-faced lie. Her actions had nothing to do with democracy. You only filibuster when your side is going to lose a vote. Democrats in recent years have used several methods to curtail democracy (Republicans have specialized in the filibuster). Legislators have skipped town to keep the legislature from having quorum to act, and in this case using a mob to keep anything from getting done. These are not examples of democracy.
Anyway, listening to her interview, I was struck when she said (at about 2:20 in this video) "I believe in the power of democracy." That's just a bald-faced lie. Her actions had nothing to do with democracy. You only filibuster when your side is going to lose a vote. Democrats in recent years have used several methods to curtail democracy (Republicans have specialized in the filibuster). Legislators have skipped town to keep the legislature from having quorum to act, and in this case using a mob to keep anything from getting done. These are not examples of democracy.
Uncharacteristic Comment from Putin
This is a little old, now, but does anyone else find it odd that Putin called us friends and asked Snowden to stop revealing information that could harm us? I can't remember any time that he's taken the United States' side on any issue or in any way acted like our friend, but here he says this. I wonder what Obama said to him to make him side with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)