Moving

I've outgrown Blogger and have decided to move my blog over to WordPress

You can check out the new Uncommon Sense there.

A Note to Senator Lieberman

Dear Senator Lieberman,

As a 17-year-old during the 2006 election, I strongly supported you against Ned Lamont, believing that you would stand up for what Connecticut really needed. I believed that even though you supported the War in Iraq, unlike many Connecticut citizens and many Americans, you would still put the interests of Connecticut Democrats and the Democrats of America above your own. Even though you ran as an Independent, I thought that your ties to the Democratic party were strong, strong enough to make you caucus with them and strong enough for you to support the Democratic agenda.

Well, it's a good thing I was too young to vote in 2006 because i would have strongly regretted my decision to vote for you now.

I didn't think much of your reelection when you used your position as an Independent to jockey the Democrats for a top Senate position. I didn't think about it much when you continued to support the War in Iraq. I didn't even think about it much when you support John McCain and were banned from the Democratic National Convention.

However, your supportive comments today in regard to what President Bush said about Barack Obama favoring a "policy of appeasement" towards terrorists. Bush's comments threw me first; I could go on and on about how his unilateral foreign policy (only further demonstrated by these comments) is wrong for our nation and has proven wrong over the past 7 years, but I am here to comment to you.

I am shocked (even though I really should not be) that you could be as dumb to stoop down to the side of our president. By calling Bush's statements correct and furthering that "It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists," you expressing first your own unfounded interests and you are not representing the views of your constituency.

Barack Obama and the Democrats position on this issue is not "naive," but rather a multilateral foreign policy that has worked for America time and time again, and one that has become lost on the Republicans since the election of Bush in 2000. When an average of 30.6% approval, President Bush's policies are not the way America wants to go. The unilateral foreign policies of the Bush administration have lost us the support of many people across the globe and have compromised our position against even the terrorist themselves. Maybe you need to take a greater look into this problem before jumping to the conclusion that President Bush's comments are correct and even commendable.

Second, your statement today does not support the views of the people of Connecticut. Connecticut is an overwhelming Democratic state, a Democratic state the supported Barack Obama in the primaries. Obviously, Democratic voters here in Connecticut are looking for a change, especially in the area of foreign policy. Your job as a Senator from Connecticut is to try to represent the views of the citizens of Connecticut, or at least do your best in trying to judge their view. Your actions over the past couple of months and especially today have demonstrated that you are not looking out for us, but are looking out for only yourself.

It's a good thing I guess that you are now an Independent because I would be ashamed to be a part of the same political party as you. I guess it's also a good thing that I was too young to vote for you, because I would have been ashamed of that vote. It is also a good thing that I only live in Connecticut for about 5 months a year because I am away in Massachusetts at college. And finally, it's a good thing that Connecticut doesn't have recall election policies for our state-elected national officials, because I would be the one leading the campaign to get enough signatures to have a recall election against you.

You should be ashamed of yourself: selling-out to corrupt politics in order to better your own position, while leaving the rest of us Connecticut citizens who you are supposed to represent in your wake.

Enjoy your time in the Senate until 2012 because you'll be gone after that.

A former supporter and concerned Connecticut Democrat,

Amy Baral

Recounting New Hampshire Memories

I thought I had put all of those terrible racist New Hampshire moments out of my head... until WaPo bring it all back.

Read this article and understand what it is like when you give a canvasser or a phonebanker a rude response when all they are trying to do is their job.

Upset about WVa?

What does Obama's super loss in West Virginia tonight mean for the general election.  Are poor white rural voters not going to back him in November?  Is he going to lose to McCain because Hillary is getting the female, less-educated, working-class vote during the primaries? 

Before you jump to conclusions or read too much into what the pundits and the Hillary camp have been saying, let's get some fact-checking done courtesy of Obama's people via Swampland:

Debunking Five Myths About Obama’s Support

MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.
FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain
• May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.
• Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).
NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.

MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:
FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.
• Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.
NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.

• Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.
· In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.
· Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.

MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:
FACT: Obama’s is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.
• LA Times (May 8) Obama: 41 McCain: 45
• Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 42 McCain: 51
• 2004 Exit polls: Kerry: 41 Bush: 58
• 2000 Exit Polls: Gore: 43 Bush: 54
• 1996 Exit polls: Clinton: 43 Dole: 46
• 1992 Exit polls: Clinton: 39 Bush: 41 Perot: 20

MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama’s position among women:
FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.
• Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 54 McCain: 40
• New York Times (May 3) Obama: 47 McCain: 39
NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush

MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:
FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters
• In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.
Obama McCain
· <$40K: 43 35
· $40K-$59K 43 40
· $60K-$100K 51 42
· $101K+ 46 47

• According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton’s insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:
· Obama vs. McCain is 40-52
· Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52

Millennial Obsession

The Millennial Generation and American Politics has become one of my new political obsessions.  It should be the general idea behind my Work for Distinction senior year and it was the main point behind my history paper posted below.

If you want to learn a brief snipbit about what I'm talking about, check out Herbert's NYT Op-Ed.

Money quote:

"Whether young Americans can shift the balance of the presidential election is an open question. But there is very little doubt that over the next several years they are capable of loosening the tremendous grip that conservatives have had on the levers of American power."

Know HOPE.  Change is coming.  We are the change we have been waiting for.

History Paper!

I just had to post it all...

Generations are defined by the years in which they were born and the specific attributes that the members of the generation hold in common. All generations have defining shared experiences that influence the way in which they live and view the world (Liesse 1). For members of the Millennial Generation, the September 11th terrorist attacks are the first event that they will remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. Similar to how parents of Millennials told their children where they were when President John F. Kennedy was shot, Millennials will be able to enthrall their children with stories about their personal experiences on September 11th, 2001. The attacks have been the single major event that has affected the lives of the Millennial Generation. The cultural memory of the Millennial Generation, in regards to September 11th, is still being formed, but one can be certain, the terrorist attacks have had a strong impact on the lives of this group of young people. September 11th has made them more interested in making a difference in the world, thereby helping them get involved with both community service and politics.

The Millennial Generation encompasses those born between 1982 and 2003. The Millennials are still a developing generation, as all of its members have not yet reached adulthood. Because of this, demographers disagree as to the size of the generation. The number varies from about 76 million to 83 million (Understanding the Millennial Generation 3, “The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation” 2). They grew up in an era of technological advances, from the Internet to cell phones, from DVD players to iPods. Two-thirds view their generation and themselves as unique (Pew “How Young People…” 1). They were nurtured by their parents while growing up, more than any other generation and; therefore, keep strong ties to their parents (Girl Scout Research Institute 3). But most importantly, the Millennial Generation was shaped by the September 11th attacks. One day, the caring and calm childhood they had come to know while growing up in the 1990s, during a time of relative economic prosperity and peace, was shattered a four plane crashed at the hands of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden.

The events of September 11th fit in precisely with Strauss and Howe’s model for the stages of generations. According to research and analysis done by Strauss and Howe, generations go through four different defining periods during the course of their lifetimes. The four stages are Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis, and High. During an Awakening, civil order comes under attack because of the values of the new group in power . An Unraveling encompasses an era of relative peace and prosperity, a high between two chaotic periods . A Crisis involves an era of secular upheaval, often with decisive wars being waged . A High era is one between a Crisis and an Awakening . (Strauss and Howe Generations 69-79) The period upon which a new generation enters the world affects the characteristics of that generation. Because of this fact, the events that occur during and even before a generation emerges play a role in shaping that generation and the way in which they respond to catastrophes that occur during their lifetime.

How do the Millennials and September 11th fit into Strauss and Howe’s model? According to the cycle, Strauss and Howe classified the Baby Boomers as an Idealist generation, Generation Xers as a Reactive generation, and the Millennials as a Civic (Hero) generation. A Civic generation is born during an Unraveling. For the Millennials, this Unraveling period was during the 1980s and 1990s, an era of economic prosperity and technological advances. This period allowed the Millennial Generation to be nurtured by their parents in a way that has made Millennials believe that they can do anything they set their minds to. Civic generations spend the beginning of their adult years during a Crisis. (Strauss and Howe Generations 335-346) For the Millennials, this Crisis began with the attacks on September 11th and has continued through the present day with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. Their overly cared for upbringing during the roaring 1980s and 1990s created an upbeat and optimistic generation of Millennials that was ready with vigor to react to September 11th through community service and even a newly created sense of being citizens of the world.

Strauss and Howe classify the Millennials as a new emerging Civic generation based on their research on the cycles of generations. According to the pair, every fourth generation can be classified as a Civic generation, one “that does great deeds, constructs nations and empires, and is afterward honored in memory and storied in myth” (Strauss and Howe Millennials Rising 326). Civic generations are known for being vigorous and rational institution-builders. They tend to be upbeat, optimistic, and group-oriented. Their generation cycles involve creating new roles for the government and dealing with major problems facing the nation and the world (Winograd and Hais 6).

The last Civic generation was the G.I. Generation, one that was leaving this world as the Millennials were entering, leaving the “hero” void for the Millennials to fill (Strauss and Howe Millennials Rising 51-52). By claiming that the Millennials are America’s next Civic Generation based on their cycle of generations, Strauss and Howe predicted the way in which the Millennials would react to the initial catastrophe that would being their Crisis period, similar to the way the G.I. Generation reacted to the Great Depression and World War II, at the start of their Crisis period.

The Millennial Generation’s desire to make a difference through community service and political participation could simply be attributed to Strauss and Howe’s positioning them as a Civic generation. Civic generations are supposed to be community-oriented and driven, simply because of the way in which they were raised. However, in order to fully understand Strauss and Howe’s cyclical nature of generations and eras, one must also take into account the events that have occurred during a generation’s lifetime. Because the events in one’s lifetime effect the way in which one will react to future catastrophes, it is simply impossible to believe that the Millennial Generation would be as civically inclined as they currently are without the terrorist attacks of September 11th.

As the defining event for the Millennial Generation, September 11th caused a shift from a Unraveling period to a Crisis period in American history and therefore, it has had a profound impact on the Millennials. Members of the Millennial Generation view themselves as unique and as able to bring about change in the United States and in the world (Winograd and Hais 92). Aside from the immediate responses of personal fear and worry, September 11th caused 61 percent of Millennials to be currently worried about the state of the world and feel personally responsible for making a difference (Cone Inc. and AMP Insights). These feelings have translated into Millennials to taking more active roles in their communities, through an increase in community service and a newly found interest in world events and politics. The calm and prosperous world that the Millennials had grown up in was no more; it was now time for them to fully enter the world as participatory citizens, stand up for what they believe in, and help their country in its time of greatest need.

The “Bowling Alone” that Robert Putnam warned about in his 2000 book seems to be dissolving, or at least not applicable to the Millennial Generation. The events of September 11th and the subsequent responses of the Millennial Generation have caused Putnam to rethink his original theory. He theorizes that the terrorist attacks, which caught the Millennial Generation in its formative years, might produce a more community-oriented and engaged group of young people (Putnam 1). Putnam’s reasoning is derived from the fact that in survey after survey, Millennials state that they are looking for ways to leave their mark on the world. This group not only expects change to occur in their communities and in the world, but they want to be the agents of that change (Sandfort and Haworth). September 11th was the first event in their lifetimes that showed the Millennials the problems of their communities, of America, and of the world. It was this event allowed the Millennials to act on these feelings in a definitive way, reshaping the world as it is currently into a better one for the future.

The first way Millennials decided to make their mark on the world was through community service. 85 percent of Millennials believe that community service is an effective way to solve problems facing both a local community and the greater world community (Winograd and Hais 262). This can be seen in the community service activities that Millennials engaged in after the September 11th attacks. Directly following the events, most of the volunteer activities that the Millennials were engaged were centered directly on the events. They donated money to and raised money for charities set up for the families of the victims, donated clothes and food to New York City, sent cards to families and eventually the United States troops in Afghanistan, and raised and sent money to Afghanistan for the population there (Girl Scouts Research Institute 8-9).

Millennials, because of their team-orientation and independence, along with their desire to make a difference directly following September 11th, not only helped on activities and with charities that were created by older generations in response to the attacks, but also put together their own programs and funds. For example, the “9-11 Stuffy Fund” created by an eleven-year-old New Yorker named Lindzay. Lindzay is a typically Millennial, born in 1990, close to the halfway point for the Millennial Generation. Lindzay’s fund raised and donated over 6,500 stuffed animals to children in the New York City. She was spurred into volunteering in this way because of the way in which she saw her fellow classmates affected by the tragedy, rather than as a way to be recognized. To Lindzay every stuffed animal that she gave to her classmates and other similar children in New York City helped her personally deal with the horror of the events while making it easier for her peers to handle what had happened as well. (“September 11th: Take Action!”)

Moving beyond the direct aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Millennials have continued to stay involved with community service. Millennials will be known for their “grassroots reconstruction of community, teamwork, and civic spirit… in the realm of community service,” and the emergence of the Internet as a tool for mass communication, has aided the Millennials in their endeavors (Strauss and Howe Millennials Rising 214). A large number of Millennials use the Internet, especially social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, to connect with their peers, promote their views, and get people involved in their service projects. Advocacy groups and volunteer organizations have popped up all over Facebook and MySpace, allowing “young people [to] weave the internet seamlessly into their activism as they do in their social lives” (Kornblum). Facebook and MySpace, along with other resources on the Internet have also allowed the Millennials to penetrate their new socially conscious ideas for the world into the land of cyberspace.

Since September 11th, volunteerism has been internalized as part of the lifestyle for the Millennials (Winograd and Hais 84). 81 percent of the young people surveyed by Cone Inc. and AMP Insights have volunteered in the past year (Cone Inc. and AMP Insights 2). Additionally, 51 percent of Millennials say that it is important to volunteer (Liesse 1). Many Millennials think about volunteering as just another aspect of life, such as playing youth sports or learning an instrument, a view that has been reinforced in the classroom, as volunteer time is now usually a requirement for high school and even college graduation.

The United States has seen an explosion in youth involvement in community service following September 11th. While this could be attributed to the fact that the Millennials are a large generation, much larger than their Generation X counterparts, evidence shows that this outpouring of youth participation has occurred simply because the Millennials are more interested in making a difference in their communities. Currently, two-thirds of college freshmen believe that it is necessary to help others. From 1974 to 1989, participation rates in national community service programs for young adults fell from 23.6 percent to 20.4 percent. However, after 2001, with Millennials coming of age to participate and the September 11th attacks, the percentage of volunteers has surged and reached a high in 2005 of 28.8 percent (Corporation for National and Community Service 2007 qtd. in Winograd and Hais 261). Analysts attribute this strong increase in participation to the fact that Millennials began to get involved in community service, both in stronger numbers than their smaller Generation X counterparts, but also with more of a ferocity than the members of Generation X ever had.

Millennials are “coiled for civic action,” both donating their time and money to community service activities, but also getting involved with politics. This civic involvement is not only because of the stage in their life that they are currently in, but also because of the “lingering effects of the unifying national crisis they had experienced in their formative years” (Putnam 1). As the Millennials saw on September 11th, world issues do have an effect on America. Before September 11th, few Millennials knew about Al-Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden. The oldest Millennials were too young to remember the circumstances surrounding the First and Second Gulf Wars, the only major encounters they had with terrorism before September 11th were the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Since September 11th, Millennials have become more interested in current events and more interested in the actions of the national government, whose effect they are directly seeing with America’s involvement in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. Only 44 percent of those aged 18-30 held that they were bored with the actions of the federal government in late 2001, as compared to the same question in 2000, where 56 felt this way (PEW “Public Opinions Six Months Later” 4). The Millennial interest in current events has continued on even after September 11th faded from the main headlines. Young people are not only interested in news on the war and terrorism, but in all types of politics (PEW “Public Opinion Six Months Later” 4).

By getting the Millennials interested in the news and current events, September 11th has changed the way the Millennials get involved with politics. Because of their sense of optimism and desire to make a difference, 60 percent of young people believe that political engagement is an effective way to solve issues for the entire country and for their local community (Harvard Institute of Politics October 2006 Survey qtd. in “The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation” 2). The easiest way that Millennials have found to voice their opinions about American policies and get involved with politics has been through voting.

Voting is one civic action that that young generations in the past have struggled to do year after year. However, for the Millennials, things are looking different. Before September 11th, during the 2000 election, the participation rate among young voters aged 18-24 was 36 percent. However, in 2004 the rate was 47 percent, up 11 percent from the previous national election. (“The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation” 1) This increase in participation is due in part to the increasing number of Millennials coming of age to vote. As more of the Millennial Generation turns 18, the United States will see a surge in participation numbers , simply because of the large size of the Millennial Generation. The extent of the increase in percentage points reflects the way in which September 11th and the subsequent actions of the federal government in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq have affected the Millennial Generation. 

September 11th was the single turning point in the lives of the members of the Millennial Generation, spurring them into taking civic action through voting and community involvement. The mismanagement of the Bush Administration in the War in Iraq and in the War on Terror, also prompted the Millennials to vote in large numbers. The increase in youth participation in elections continued in the 2006 midterm elections where there was a 24 percent increase in voter turnout for those aged 18-24 (Winograd and Hais 87). The Millennials have already made their mark on the 2004 and 2006 elections and it is likely that they will continue to do so in the upcoming elections.

Being the largest generation in American history, behind the Baby Boomer Generation, the Millennials’ newfound interest in politics could have a significant impact on the political arena. Politically coming of age in America after the September 11th attacks has influenced the policies and party that the Millennial Generation supports. Polling for the Millennial Generation has shown that they are developing an extremely progressive world-view. Millennials favor a multilateral approach to foreign policy, as they recognize the need for the world to work together to not only solve problems between warring states and with terrorism, but also issues such as global poverty and global warming (Connery “Millennials Rising” 2). This opinion is a clear rejection of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy, which many Millennials view as aggressive and unwarranted. 69 percent of Millennials favor a larger government that provides social services for the population (Winograd and Hais 95). 

Furthermore, Millennials are concerned about economic inequalities and believe that it is the government’s job to help iron out some of these disparities (“The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation” 1). In both of these areas, the Millennials see the Bush Administration and Republican Party as failing, such as in the lack of a quick response to Hurricane Katrina. Currently, Democratic Millennials outnumber their Republican counterparts by at 1.75:1 ratio, a number that could have a significant impact on American politics (Winograd and Hais 206).

By November 2008, 50 million Millennials will be eligible to vote and by 2016, they will make up one-third of the electorate (“The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation” 1). These numbers in themselves have the ability to change politics. Additionally, the fact that the impact of September 11th increased the civic-mindedness and political involvement of the Millennial Generation may in fact encourage the Democratically inclined youth to vote in large numbers in November 2008, as they have in the past two elections (Winograd and Hais 197). The impact of the Millennials has already been seen in the 2008 primaries, as the turnout for the Millennial Generation in the 2008 primaries has been anywhere from three to four times higher than ever in the past (Putnam 1). It is because of this strong youth vote and his strong appeal among the youth that Barack Obama has pushed past Hillary Clinton in many of those primary contests.

The attacks on September 11th were the first events in the political and historical consciences of the Millennial Generation. For this reason, the events will no doubt have a profound impact on the members of youth as they grow up and continue through adulthood with their childhoods effectively shattered by those events. Their cultural memory of the events has made the Millennials “wary, aware, but extremely optimistic” (Hart qtd. in Nagar 1).

The terrorist attacks were the catalyst that the Millennials needed to start up their increased involvement in the community and in politics. “Just as Pearl Harbor had spawned the civic-minded “Greatest Generation,” so too Sept. 11 might turn out to produce a more civically engaged generation of young people (Putnam 1). The full results of the beginning of the Crisis period in the Millennials’ lifetime have yet to be fully determined. September 11th not only caused the Millennial Generation to become more involved in community service, but also in politics and Democratic politics at that. It is highly possible that September 11th could have created the cultural memory for the Millennial Generation that would be necessary to spark a civic realignment in favor of the Democratic Party in either the 2008, 2012, or 2016 elections. However, because those elections have yet to take place, along with the fact the cultural memory for the Millennial Generation in response to September 11th is still being developed and current events are always changing, one can never be certain that a realignment will occur in either of these three upcoming elections, or will occur at all.

Back to Childhood

Sorry, I watched Barney as a child, but even the characters on Sesame Street understand this election...

Gravel Rapping?

Yeah, that's right!

This is me studying

Love it Andrew!

Politics and Philosophy Review Notes

Theories of Justice

- Plato- an ideal between justice as an individual moral virtue and as a political virtue

- Thucydides- only existing between equals

- Hobbes- only a political virtue of non-ideal societies

- Locke- arising from and responding to natural moral rights via consent

Rights

- How to justify, what is the role of state in relation to rights

Rawls

- Fundamental idea in concept of justice is fairness

- Design of institutions

- 2 principles

- Inequalities work for everyone's advantage (difference principle)

- All institutions must be open to all (liberty principle)

- Justice: liberty, equality, rewards for services contributing to public good

Equilibrium and "Original Position"

- Recognition of equal standing, impartiality, fair procedure for attaining equilibrium

- Build society from scratch

Slavery

- Utilitarian- just if promotes general happiness

- Rawls attacks this

- Slavery is always unjust, slave-holder's happiness does not need to be taken into account

- Slavery violates difference and liberty principles

Criticisms of Rawls

- Simmons- principles don't follow, deliberators would seek social minimum

Nozick

- Accepting right to profit from talents undercuts difference principle

- 3 sense of justice: acquisition, transfer, rectification

- Historical justice: was it just? / end-state justice: justice as an ideal end

What Does It Show?

- Wilt Chamberlin- if each fan drops money into box and money goes to Chamberlin

- Should he profit?

- Nozick- right to profit

- Simmons criticizes

- Ok if Chamberlin paid taxes

Rousseau's 2nd Discourse

- What is the basis for the inequality we find among men?

Dedication

- To idealized Geneva

- Idealized republic- unified, law-abiding, simple and free, small city-state capable of governing itself without corruption and with full citizen participation

Preface- Basic Questions

- More we know, more we are removed from society

- All right from

- Amour propre (self-love)- desire to further our own interests / ends

- Pity- feel in relation to suffering of others

- Original man just ruled by passions

Human Nature

- Physically much like us

- Driven by passions

- Pre-linguistic

- Have will and perfectibility

- Natural state- equal state with little change b/c needs were satisfied

How did we end up where we are now?

- 1st man to enclose ground- civil society

- Property and tricking / deceiving each other = inequality of civil society

- Vs. Hobbes and Locke- civil society protects property

- Hobbes- need progress to have stable lives

- Locke- right to property is basis of all civil society

- Justice is about securing property

- Rousseau- injustice begins with property- fall of humankind

- Nothing natural about property- it is an attempt to deceive

The Initial Fall

- Natural population pressures

- Adaptation

- Drive men to pride, distinctions, jealousy

- Create distinctions that are unnatural

- Language allows people to lie

- Farming society may be best kind of human society

Society

- Humans lie and deceive = wars begin

- Weak banded together to protect from oppression and submitted to gain freedom from societies

- Part of our enslavement because of our dependence on them

- Dependences leads to inherent disequality

End Game

- Wholly dependent on society and laws = worst kind of tyranny

- Subordinating power to common good- Rousseau thinks this is bad

- Destroys natural pity we ought to feel

Legitimacy

- Criticizes predecessors

- How can you transfer liberty?

3 Stages of Inequality

- Law and Right of Property

- Institution of Magistracy

- Master and Slave- everyone alienated from their own liberty

Justifying Democracy

- Justified by showing it is optimal / even obligatory

Instrumental Justification

- Leads to greatest happiness

- Best expresses individual preferences, best tracks general will

Harm Principle

- 1st concern- liberty of action

- Only in cases of self-protection is it ok to interfere with liberty of action

- Can't make people do things for their own good

- "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"

Problem Cases

- Children, mentally ill- not capable of being sovereign over themselves = paternalism ok

- Problem: slippery slope

- Difference between making a statement and making a statement that would cause people to act

- Can't use other things as an excuse for your behavior

Speech and Truth

- Thought and discussion allowed b/c strongly connected to truth

- Isn't at all evident that we know the truth- horribly unpopular

- Knowing a truth means actively challenging orthodoxy and really understand why you accept a belief

Individuality, Eccentricity, Variety

- Continuously engaged with experiments of living

- Should cherish eccentricity

- Social laws force people to conform

- Character and life isn't one size fits all

Rights

- Should be hands off unless harm is manifest

Objections

- Don't we punish people all the time for moral indiscretion?

- When society interferes it does so in the wrong place and in the wrong way

- Govt. won't stop once they start

- Hart- allows judges to decide what is immoral

- Mill- need strict boundaries (harm principle)

Stephen

- What are the conditions under which and limitations within which law can be applied with success to the object of making men better

- Law is about making you moral and punishing things that are immoral

The Moral Role of Law

- Criminal law applied to suppression of vice

- Law is about also hurting people who hurt others because we are resentful and want revenge

The Law is about Morality

- Limits

- Law can't be meddlesome and strict rule of evidence

- Privacy- can't regulate with family- inefficiency of law in punishing in this way

- Law codes change as morality changes- reflect a moral majority

Hart

- Legal positivism- law code is arbitrary in that they don't need to deal with morality

Questions about Relation between Law and Morality

- Does the development of law been influenced by morals?- yes

- Must some reference to morality enter into an adequate definition of the law or legal system?- legal positivism, yes

- Is law open to moral criticism

- Is the fact that certain conduct is by common standard immoral sufficient to justify making that conduct punishable by law

Shaw v. Direct or Public Prosecutions

- Found guilty of conspiring to corrupt public morals

- Injects arbitrariness into law, advocates strong connection between law and morals

- Allows judge too much power

- Only based on morals

- Result: any cooperative conduct is criminal if jury considered it ex post facto to have been immoral

Is the enforcement  of morality morally justified?

- Positive morality- moral system we have

- Critical morality- morality we should / ought to have

- Issues involves this

Paternalism and Punishment

- Devlin- consent not a valid defense, law is there to enforce moral principle and nothing else

- Paternalism- because it will be better for him / enforcement of morality- because in the opinion of others it would be right

- Stephen- grading punishments in relation to crimes shows that the law concerns persecuting the grosser forms of vice

- Doesn't show it- we grade punishments in proportion to our moral conventions

- Difference between justifying punishment as such and justifying the amount of punishment

- Morality can be part of law, but law cannot be based on punishing morality

Bigamy

- Seems to support Stephen / Devlin

- But law only concerns formal marriage, not cohabitation

- If done in private, it is not an offense to others

- Distinction between immorality and indecency

Extreme and Moderate Legal Moralism

- Moderate Legal Moralism- Devlin

- Shared morality is the cement of society

- Breach against moral principle is an offense against society

- Society can use law to preserve its morality as it uses it to safeguard anything else essential to its existence

- Extreme Legal Moralism- Stephen

- The enforcement of morality is regarded as a thing of value: even if immoral acts harm no one directly, or indirectly

- People have done immoral things and must be punished

Enforcement

- Enforcing sexual morality- coercion (fear of law), punishment

- What good can come from coercion if the act is consensual

Punishment

- What is retribution for sexual means?

- Denounce crime?

Positive Conservatism

- Social morality worth preserving

- Advocate holding onto any moral principle we happen to have and backing it by punishment

- Stephen and Devlin- this is the moral code we have therefore it needs to be preserved

Realism and Moral Reality of War

- Realism- Thucydides and Hobbes

- Reveal true human nature

- Just and unjust really means strong and weak

- Ex: Melian Dialogue and Hobbes' state of nature

Agincourt and POWs

- Henry V commanded that the prisoners be killed, then relented

- Walzer- shows how even in war we want to be moral

- Garrett- doesn't show this

The Crime of War

- Justice of war / justice in war

- Clausewitz- deny that there's any distinction- war naturally escalates beyond any boundary we set for it

"War is Hell"

- Saw war in moral terms

The Rules of War

- Degrees of coercion matter

- Wrong to kill wounded or surrendering

The War Convention

- Rules concerning when and how soldiers can kill and who they can kill

Aggression

- Legalist Paradigm

- There is an int'l society of independent states

- Int'l society has a law that establishes the rights of its members

- Any use of / imminent threat of force against T.I. or P.S. of another = aggression and is criminal

- Aggression justifies self-defense and law enforcement

- Nothing but aggression can justify war

- Once aggressor has been repulsed, it can be punished

Resistance vs. Appeasement

- Glorify resistance against immoral aggression

- Hard to decide when appeasement is appropriate

Preventative War and Pre-Emption

- Preventative war- justified by arguing that balance is essential to liberties and that not to act would incur dramatic costs

- Logic ends on devaluing human life

- Pre-emptive decisions harder

- Depends on manifest intent to injure, active preparation, and situation where waiting would increase risk

- 6 Day War- example of difficulties

Interventions

- Mill- anti-interventionist, self-determining

- Need strict standards of when and how

Civil War and Counter-Intervention

- Vietnam

- Walzer- hard to view as a legitimate case of counter-intervention

- Lack of internal support for S. Vietnamese regime

- Goal of counter-intervention: not to win war

War's Means

- How to guide means- proportionality? utility?

War's Ends

- Goal affects end of war- unconditional surrender

- Hold ends constant and in view- unchanged by way the war is going

- Rights of nations to be states can't be affected by end of the war

Noncombatant Immunity and Military Necessity

- Naked soldiers

- Civilians- make what soldiers need to fight / make what soldiers need to live

- Laconia Order

Double Effect

- Surface: limits what can be done in war

- Really: allows you to do things in war if they seem to be good

- Act is indifferent and good

- Direct effect is morally acceptable

- Actor's intention is good, doesn't intend evil effect

- Evil effect is not one of his ends nor a means to his ends

- Good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for the evil effect

Terrorism

- Random murder of civilians for strategic reasons

- Are you allowed different tactics because you don't have conventional things for war?

- Terrorism violates doctrine of double effect- kill civilians as a means to an end

- When do you move from being a civilians to being a govt. official

- Terror is the totalitarian form of war and politics

Reprisals

- Uneasy

- Always bad?

Winning and Fighting Well

- Duke of Sung- refused to engage in tactics against rules of war

- Rawls- sliding scale- more justice, more rights

- Walzer- erosion of rights (utilitarian argument)

- Still need to maintain justice in war- need to respect rights of soldiers

- Accepts that under certain conditions of necessity you can violate some / all rules

- What is an acceptable test?

Supreme Emergency

- When can we give into necessity and target civilians?

- Be careful when claim necessity for mere expediency

- Case of extreme annihilation, last stand

- Ex: Melos

- If you are ration and calm and can formulate the question of necessity- it's not necessity

War Crimes: Political Leaders

- Weizsaecker- how difficult to distribute responsibility

- Didn't like Nazis, mid-level German govt.

- Continued with duties

- Brought up on war crimes- should have resisted at some point

- Can you really expect people to be heroic?

- Gerstein- member of S.S. who killed himself

War Crimes

- Excuse defenses

- "I was insane"

- "I was just following orders"

- My Lai massacre

- General Yamashita- atrocities in Philipennes during WWI

- Couldn't communicate with soldiers when they were committing war crimes

- Sentenced to death and hung

- Generals should train their soldiers not to commit war crimes even when they are not there- Gen. Yamashita didn't train his soldiers well

Public Policy Review Notes

Energy Policy

Energy Characteristics:

- Tradeable good- price, buy at price offered at

- Price affects production and consumption

Policy Analysts- leave entirely to marketplace

- Should have not govt. regulation of energy

Energy Policy defined as:

- Govt. regulation of price, production, consumption

Bush Administration Energy Bill- costs $50 bn

- Almost all of it is unnecessary / give away to business

- Rent seeking- business trying to get special favors from govt. to have profits go above and beyond

- Department of Energy- doing some things that aren't energy policy

- Dems are no better than Repubs on energy policy

- Rossell- what is necessary shouldn't be called energy policy

Rossell- abolish Department of Energy and do nothing in the field of energy

- Govt. should intervene only where there is market failure

- Dept. of Energy is pro-business

- Dept. of Environment would be anti-business

- No market failure in energy- consumers consume based on price, producers produce based on price

- Govt. should intervene in moral, social injustices / inequalities

- Govt. should intervene to enforce the rules of the game- technical monopolies

- Negative externalities- pollution

- More efficient to attack problem directly (regulate pollution itself rather than regulate energy)

- Energy is unlimited, energy is regulated much better and more efficiently by marketplace than by govt. (Rossell)

Price increases over time = consumption decreases overtime

Price of traditional energy increases over time = production of alternative energy increases overtime

Direct government regulation produces 4 negative outcomes:

- $ used to pay for something the marketplace can regulate, $ is taken away from something valuable that only govt. can provide

- Govt. subsidies and tax breaks to business encourage inefficient businesses that wouldn't exist without subsidy

- Govt. subsidies / tax breaks create an immoral climate of rent seeking and cheating

- Govt. has no idea what will be the most efficient energy of the future will be- the marketplace does

Deal with Energy Negative Externalities Directly

- Defense and economic policy- OPEC

- Welfare policy- give money to poor as a function of the cost of living

- Environmental policy- deal with pollution directly (impose sanctions, negative incentives)

Possible Market Failure?

- Research policy- most research and development accomplished in private sector- little or no market failure

Environmental Policy

Goal: clean air, clean water, safe food, and visually attractive, natural landscape

Environmental Policy Strategies

- Command and control- regulations specifying pollution standards, emissions, and technology

- Our policy mostly

- Hybrid C&C / M.I.- govt. market in pollution rights (TDPs)

- Market incentives- pollution tax / effluent fees (charge for pollution)

   - Favored by policy analysts- least government regulation

Pollution must be controlled in some way by the government

- Market incentive: pollute, pollute, pollute

History of U.S. Environmental Protection- command and control

Water Pollution

- Refuse Act of 1899- limits debris in navigable streams

- 1948-1966- state enforcement with federal funding

- Problems- pollution doesn't respect state boundaries, companies can go to state with more lax policies, a race to the bottom to attract businesses

- Clean Waters Restoration Act 1966- water quality enforcement by Department of Interior

- Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments 1972

- Goal by 1985- end all discharge of pollutants into waterways

- Goal by 1983- water safe for fish, shellfish, animals, and people

- Goal by 1977- best practible control technology to eliminate contaminants

- Goal by 1983- have best available technology

- Emphasis on discharge control, not water quality

- Outcome: lengthy legal battles

Air Pollution

- 1955-1965 Federal funding for research

- Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act 1965- first federal program to directly regulate air pollution, HEW to set emissions standards

- Clean Air Act Amendments 1970- goal: eliminate all air pollution by 1977

- National Environmental Policy Act 1970- created advisory group, environmental impact statement, important tool for environmental groups challenging federal projects

- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1970

- Responsible for: water pollution, air pollution, solid waste management, radiation control, pesticide and toxic substances

- Power to enforce policy with lawsuits and fines

- Comprehensive Environmental Response Act 1980- created Hazardous Waste Superfund providing EPA with authority and funds

- Bubble Concept of 1980s- whole plant needs to meet one standard

Market Incentives Model

- Two Strategies

- Make existing market arrangements operate better by regulating

- Prices- pollution feels or taxes (pure M.I.)- what policy analysts really want

- Information- mandatory disclosure laws, govt. disclosure

- Create a market in previously untraded goods

- TDPs (hybrid)

- Deposit refund systems

- Arguments in favor of incentive scheme

- Efficiency- achieves same policy objective at lower cost

- Innovation- choose techniques that best max. profits rather than just trying to get below the govt. standard

- Information use- govt. can't match the info processing attributes of the market

- Instrusiveness- minimizes govt. intrusion that can be costly to business

- Admin. complexity- less govt. organization needed b/c firms comply in their own self-interest

- Arguments against an incentive scheme

- Determining precise tax level / effluent charge difficult

- Govt. calculates damage functions / production cost function- hard

- Tax must be constantly adjusted- high enough to decrease pollution, but not high enough that too many businesses go bankrupt

- Administrative costs- still require administration

- Enforcement complicated

- Utility meter- not created yet

- Self-reporting- wouldn't work

- Political / philosophical issues

- No clear civic understanding- don't know how bad pollution is

- Equity- small businesses more likely to fail; big businesses would profit and continue to pollute

- Private ownership- some valued goods should not be considered private property

- Social value- assigning prices to natural resources devalues them

- Motivation- rely on self-interests and ignoring intent creates society without morals

- Political feasibility- low

- Why have incentive schemes not been more successful?

- TDPs in limited scope- regional, utility specific, flawed design, high administrative costs, limited programs

Ranking Policy Alternatives

Equity Effectiveness  (Net Benefit) Efficiency (B:C) Political Feasibility

TDP MI MI CC

CC TDP TDP TDP

MI CC CC MI

FM FM FM FM

Global Cooperation and Comparisons

- US ranked at bottom

- Kyoto Protocol 1997

- Voluntary agreement limiting greenhouse gas emissions

- Goal: global reduction in emissions 5% below 1990s levels between 2008 and 2012

- China and India exempt

- Needed countries with 55% world's emissions

- Cooperation with Kyoto

- Japan and Germany, EU, E. Europe

- Bush Administration refuses to sign

- Russia ratified = 58.7%- 2004 went into effect

- More symbolic than practical

Global Warming

- Only 3 things scientists agree on regarding global warming

- 1 degree increase in temperature since 19th C.

- Levels of CO2 in atmosphere have increased by 30% since 19th. C.

- CO2 emissions should contribute to future warming

- Predictions of bad effects of global warming based on junk science

- Sea levels have increased since the last ice age

- Models used to make predictions aren't trustworthy, unexplained occurances

- Models don't predict disaster

- Global warming might even be good- increase in production, mammal diversity, intellectual activity

- Rossell- deal with externalities of energy we consume, charge for pollution = less pollution, deal with global warming if it becomes a problem

- Incentive in almost all policy areas if for experts and scientists to trumpet alarm because they get more funding if they do (Lundzen)

- Rossell- take money from research and charge for pollution

Education Policy

Education: a private and public good

- Private- helped individuals get ahead

- Public- literacy and math for good of society

3 Levels of Governance

- Local school districts- lowest level, min. 3 schools, headed by Superintendent

- State agencies and courts- make education policy, create school districts

- Federal govt. and courts (9%)- least important, shouldn't have Dept. of Education

- Categorical programs- benefit particular group / constitutional regulations for schools

Federal Policy: Redressing of Inequality of Origin

- 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

- Largest federal spending on schools

- Equal educational opportunity

- More money to poorer schools

- NCLB 2001 (signed 2002)

- Major change: assessment and choice

- Annual achievement assessment grades 3-8

- All students and subgroups must be "proficient" by 2013-2014 (very high standard)

- Parents can leave "failing" schools

- Subgroups: Whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Blacks, Poor Kids, Special Education (SPED), Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

- Theoretically impossible for all groups to score at proficient level- SPED and LEP leave group if score high

- Unfunded mandate

- Unrealistic to expect equalized achievement while not funding or dealing with direct correlation with poverty

- Problem- schools explain only 20% of variations in academic achievement

- Rest explained by personal, home, family, and community characteristics

Student Achievement

- Minimum Competency Tests (State Proficiency Tests)

- In all states

- Most require a passing grade for H.S. graduation

- Can take over and over

- Criterion- reference tests- alligned with state curriculum

- Teacher Competency

- Everyone confused about tests and test scores

- Teachers take blame b/c only 1/2 students read at grade level- but this is all that is nationally possible!

- Merit Pay

- Difficult to express merit when schools only account for 20% of achievement

- What is "merit"?

- CMCC- teachers salaries need to be raised

- However: starting salaries good on an hourly rate, teachers with experience and degrees can make over $100,000, retire at 57 with 3/4 salary for life (defined-benefit plan), tenure after 3 years, 3x more sick leave

- Problem: equity- suburbs paid same as city

- Rossell- teaches well-paid on average with extraordinary benefits

- Merit-pay possibilities are expensive- peer review and principal

- Bilingual Education

- Goal: raise achievement of immigrants / limited English proficient children to be equal of Anglos / native speakers- impossible because just learning English = score lower

- True B.E.:

- Teach to read and write in native tongue

- Teach in native tongue

- Teach English about 1 hour / day

- Increase English, decrease native tongue when reach native tongue proficiency

- Many states have 3 yr. limit- largely ignored

- 1971 Chapter 71A Massachusetts

- 20+ LEP students of a single language in a district must be taught in full-time B.E.

- Widespread cheating and no one cares

- Rossell conditions for true B.E.

- Enough students of a single language to fill a classroom by combining no more than 2 grades

- Native tongue with a Roman alphabet

- Teacher and students must all speak same language

- Published textbooks in native tongue that follow curriculum

- Nationwide and in MA- only Spanish-speakers get true B.E.

- Does B.E. work?

Classroom Type Instruct Language Rank Program Name

Self-contained English 1 Structured Immersion / SEI

Mainstream English 2 ESL pullout

Mainstream English 3 Do nothing

Self-contained Native 4 B.E.

* SEI works best, but should only be in program for 1 year (Rossell)

- MA- voters amended 71A with Question 2 (English for Children) in 2002

- Similar to Proposition 227 in CA (1998) and Proposition 213 in AZ (2000)

- Default assignment is SEI

- Parents must sign a waiver after 30 days in SEI if want alternative

Relationship of Education to Individual Income and Economy

Crisis in Education

- 1983- A Nation at Risk

- Misunderstanding

- NAEP- less than 1% and less than 3% advanced

- But designed so that only 5% scored advanced

- US tests scores can't be compared to other countries

- Most egalitarian education system in world

- Drop out rate is lowest in world (not considering Japan)

Individual Rate of Return- benefit to you as an individual

- Human capital theory- education makes you more productive

- No evidence beyond elementary 3 Rs (reading, writing, arithmetic)

- Years of schooling still has a positive rate of return

- Education is a signaling device to match workers to jobs / screening device

Social Rate of Return- benefit to society

- Nothing beyond 8th grade skills used in most jobs, most people are overqualified

- Most efficient job training is on-the-job

- Jobs are fixed- over-educated

- Too many college educated students

- Fastest growing sector: low skill and service

- Education inflation

- US ins most productive country in world- no evidence this is linked to test scores

- Rossell- need mix in intellectuals and workers

Evaluation of Current Education System

- Reasonably equitable system compared with rest of the world

- Race and ethnic disparities a problem

- Preschool and childcare disparities a problem

- Somewhat inefficient and ineffective in supplying workers for economy (over-educated)

Solutions to Problems

- Solution to Childcare and Preschool- subsidized childcare, off-hours, universal preschool at age 2

- For every $1, $3-5 in benefits

- Solutions to problem of too many people in college- nothing politically feasible

Model of Policymaking- incrementalism

Model of Regulation

- C&C- state regulation on hours, curriculum, minimum standards (98%)

- M.I.- vouchers, school choice, charter schools (2%)

- Vouchers are equitable, efficient, and may decrease race gap if limited to low income

- CMCC- don't like vouchers for all- little effect because would increase disparities