The Ambrosini Critique

Sometimes I’m walking along and find myself a few paces behind a lone woman. More often than not, I get the distinct impression that she thinks I’m a creep just for being a man…

A commenter at Pharyngula responds to my comment:

(The italics are me.) The federal government secures the right of free movement so if California didn’t allow you to have an abortion, you can cross the border to Oregon or some other state that did.

That’s in theory. In practice, most people can’t because they can’t afford it.

I agree that some issues have resolutions that can (and should) be deemed to have universal truth (i.e. slavery is wrong or women should be able to vote). My point is that abortion is one of those issues that can be argued, persuasively, both ways. (Its an interesting question of how an issue goes from the latter category to the former!)

Slave owners and their apologists made some pretty strong arguments in their time. First they said that abolition of slavery was in violation of their property rights. Then they retreated to paternalism. Then they transformed this into a Southern identity. Similarly, with female suffrage, a lot of people believed it was wrong because it conflicted with women’s role as housewives. Incidentally, whereas things like taxes and labor law can be left to the states, abortion is a civil rights issue regardless of whether you’re pro- or anti-, so what happens is that both sides agree that the resolution needs to be on a federal level.

My preference is to have these decisions made as close the the people as possible.

Why? On some issues local decision-making is very good, but many times you have to have large-scale coordination, and as I showed above, local decision-making stinks with respect to treating minorities equally. Education is a prime example of where localism gets it wrong: you put the lay public in charge of an expert issue and expect things to go right. They go wrong when you let people vote on how doctors should operate, and they go wrong when you let people vote on school curriculums.

First, take the money I donate to Planned Parenthood and create regularly scheduled shuttles to and from states that allow abortion. (I know this is lame, but I’m just throwing out ideas here.)

Second, if you think abortion is murder, you don’t see it as a civil rights issue. You see it as a criminal matter. BTW, I’m arguing against the need to make it a federal case on both sides… Plus, I don’t think you can honestly defend the right to abortion with as much passion as the abolitionist and the suffragettes argued their strongly held beliefs. At least, I can’t.

Third, something like the belief in what is and what is not murder is core to the fabric of one’s world view. Having grown up in Northern California, among the redwood trees, I’ve seen what happens to a community when outsiders invade and begin to impose their world view. The tree huggers were and are right, but they destroyed my ancestors way of life in their heavy-handedness. Needless to say, my family, friends and neighbors resented the environmentalists, but ironically, most of them would agree, in one way or another, that the environment needs to be protected. To me, this indicates that my community would have been willing to change (e.g. to build alternative industries other than timber), but instead were forced to swallow a painful horse pill.

Change should happen from the bottom-up; it should not be imposed on a people. If you want to change the way people view the world, get involved in their community (i.e. live there) and give them alternatives. The answer is NOT to have a court, in some cases, thousands of miles away to dictate from above.

I don’t accept the contention that we experts should dictate to the local plebs; I trust people to do what is right for them… If not economically, then morally (and who am I to dictate morals to someone else?). We experts advise change; we should even give heavy incentive to change, but we should never dictate it.

Why? Well, the legitimacy of the system that allows for experts, that allows for courts and for a legislature depends on the will of the people. As Justice Breyer said in his recent debate with Justice Scalia, “[there's] a very strong American belief that all power has to flow from the people.” And bad things happen when the people feel that flow has reversed (see US Civil War).

Mr. Myers is talking about reproductive rights. I’m struck by this line from the quote he uses: “This was the norm until we got Roe v. Wade and the New York law that preceded it.”

New York didn’t need Roe v. Wade to secure “reproductive rights.” The state passed a law already granting them before the Supreme Court’s decision.

Is it possible to view Roe v. Wade in terms of federalism. The federal government doesn’t need to be involved in every aspect of our lives. If you believe that women should have the right to choose, then lobby your state legistlature as such. If you believe that abortion is murder, then lobby your state legistlature as such.

I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, but I can see why someone might see otherwise. It’s seems plausable that if we call the killing of a baby murder, then we might call the killing of a fetus murder. The definition of murder is as socially constructed as the definition of marriage and thus no definition can be said to be right in absolute terms.

The great thing about our system of government is that it allows for diversity, an ecology, of ideas. By definition, States are closer to the people and are more able to reflect their ideals and implicit social norms in laws. As a Californian, whose own Supreme Court ruled for the legalization of abortion in 1969 (four years before Roe v. Wade), what right do I have to tell a Texan or a New Yorker how to live?

Following on Kevin and my lists of our top 9 DVD’s that we love to pop in on a lazy Monday evening, my sister posted her collection…

9.Signs

8.The Goonies

7.Titanic

6.The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal series

5.Mean Girls

4.Identity

3.Gothica

2.Napoleon dynamite

1.Team America

Wait, is Team America even out on DVD?

Randall Parker and I are going back and forth on Iraq policy over at his Parapundit site:

I should say, that I was VERY reluctant to vote Bush. When voting for President, I take the pov that that office has limited scope and it is limited mostly to conduct of foreign relations. In that context, Bush had something for me where Kerry did not. I kept hoping and praying that Kerry/Democrats would come up with an alternative to the Bush Doctrine. All I heard was, in essence, “It’s wrong!” Great, I’ll admit that it has limitations and that it is dangerous, but what is the alternative?

The realist school (Bush Sr. and Clinton) failed to secure us from immediate threat. From Podhoretz’ perspective, the folks you cite in the “Unilaterally Withdraw…” post (Odom and Diamond) are just bitter “realists” that see their influence dwindling (or being made irrelevant in a post-9/11 world).

The liberal internationalism are correct in their prescriptions for long term security, but they say nothing about the short term. It is true that the root cause of the terrorist threat is poverty and ignorance. These things can be remedied in the long run by instituting accountable government and economic freedom (Bush calls these democracy and capitalism). The question is how do we get from here to there and what do we do in the short run to “drain the swamp?”

Frankly, I hear the same from you. Iraq policy is broken. Fine, but are you making a strong argument or weak one. The weak argument is that we failed to properly implement the policy. I might concede a point or two there. On the other hand, the strong argument is that the strategy itself is flawed. If that’s your claim, what do we instead of the ambitious Bush Doctrine to prevent terrorism in the short and long term?

Actually, the discussion has made me review who I voted for in past elections… Let’s see: Perot, Dole, Nader(!) and now Bush. I don’t think I was being honest about voting for Presidents based on their views on foreign relations. That only became an issue for me in this last election. On the other hand, I do believe we tend to put more weight on the importance of the Presedency than that office actually does. Steve Antler posted on this subject earlier today.

Congratulations to my sister’s basketball team for winning on Saturday!

Kevin has a post on the top nine movies in his DVD collection. He has interesting criteria:

If I could only have a home movie library of 9 movies, what movies would be in it? This is very different from the best 9 movies of all time, or even my favorite 9 movies of all time. For example, I’ve never even seen Casablanca, Citizen Cane or Gone with the Wind, so I obviously won’t include them if I only can own 9 movies. Also, I think the first Matrix may be one of the best movies of all time, or at least one of my favorites, but you won’t find it in my dvd stack. These are simply the 9 movies that if I’m sitting at home, bored on a Monday night, I would most likely be in the mood to watch at least one of.

His choices:

9. White Men Can’t Jump

8. City of God

7. Zoolander

6. Scarface

5. Beautiful Girls

4. Swingers

3. Boondock Saints

2. Kalifornia

1. Braveheart

So, what would my collection be? I’d have a little more science fiction, some more classics and a little less machismo:

9. Casablanca – I never get why he let’s her go. Rated 8.7

8. Amelie – She’s so damned cute. Rated 8.5

7. Barry Lyndon – This is a long one, but you never you want it to end. Rated 7.8

6. Braveheart – There’s something in there for everyone. Rated 8.2

5. Shawshank Redemption – After tunneling for years through solid rock, he crawls through hundreds of yards of sewage to be free. That’s dedication! Rated 8.9

4. The Princess Bride – “Have fun storming the castle!” “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.” Rated 8.1

3. Empire Strikes Back – This way beats out the other 2 (err 4) movies. “Luke, I am your faaaather.” Rated 8.6

2. Godfather – A master piece from start to finish. Rated 9.0

1. Matrix – Ideas, story, characters, CG and sound… completely submerges me every time I watch. Rated 8.4

And the runners up:

The Silence of the Lambs – This movie’s still scary and who doesn’t love Hannibal? Rated 8.5

Much Ado About Nothing – I like most of Brannaugh’s Shakespeare films. Rated 7.5

South Park – Funny every time I watch it. Rated 7.6

Cal #4 in the world!

Norman Podhoretz has a nice narrative in Commentary magazine that explains the situation in Iraq and the President’s words and actions in relation to various schools of thought. He draws a nice parallel between the discourse regarding President Truman’s doctrine and the current discourse on the Bush doctrine. Ultimately, the Bush doctrine represents a completely new way to look at foreign affairs that threatens traditional points of view (realists on the right and liberal internationalists on the left). Mr. Podhoretz believes that the President will continue on the path to implement his doctrine.

As he points, most voices are aligned against the President with even some of the most ardent Iraq war proponents switched sides in recent months. Assuming the critics are wrong and the President is right, how can we win a war of ideas (as surely the war on terror is) if the ideas aren’t being loudly defended?

Anyway, read the whole thing, as they say.