No.

What kind of dribbling nonsense is this? If Sotomayor believes her Puerto Rican descent gives her superiority over any non-Puerto Rican, then she could be labeled a racist. If she believes her gender gives her something superior to men, then she is a sexist.

It doesn't take much to sort that out. All it takes is a dictionary.

There is no such thing as a "reverse racist". Rush Limbaugh may say what he likes (ain't America great?) but it is irresponsible to create made-up phrases that defy all semantic logic.

Tags: politics, racism, rush limbaugh, sexism, sotomayor

I was about to post something on this question, which is the first great question in Plato's Republic, but Windows has decided that my post was bad, because it flipped through several pages of my history, deleting the post.  That, my friends, is not justice.
The biggest problem with taking any generic philosophical question out of context is that any discussion of the question begs the context to be applied.  In this case, I can't think about justice unless I drag morality into the discussion, which I am happy to do.
But now that I think on it, and after having my arguments erased, I think I'll change my approach.
Justice is a measure the ethic or moral value of social interactions.  We can try to label any action just or unjust, but it won't even begin to make sense unless the action has an impact on more than one person.  For example, brushing your teeth can be seen as a moral decision, but one involving justice.  It can be stretched into a justice issue if you kiss people, I suppose, but I wouldn't imagine that not brushing my teeth is an act of injustice to myself.  (The stretch is to say that my failure to brush my teeth forces my dental hygienist to work harder, but she's a sweet and pretty girl, so why shouldn't I eat an entire box of cookies before going in for a checkup?)
Anyway, actions that have impact on more than one person can have a justice value applied to them.  Also, systems of government can have justice values applied to them because the system of government implies mandatory actions to be taken that affect more than one person.  Plato wants to look for justice at the state (government) scale, so let's get distracted.
It is clear that the US military's lack of care for her soldiers returning from Iraq is unjust, if not outright evil.  The system itself prevents soldiers from being treated for shell-shock (which they call Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) and even goes so far as to send these soldiers back to the front, as it were.  This is unjust.  So far everyone who has made a statement about it seems to agree that this is unjust.  I suppose the evil actions involving Walter Reed and other hospitals was the failure to address the problems when they first learned about them.  It is clear the the Army covered things up before fixing them, and only addressed fixing them once the media plastered the story into the public conscience.
Since I touched on injustice and evil being related, let's examine that link.  Is an unjust act evil?  I think I am willing to claim that just acts are moral acts, and that unjust acts are immoral acts, but are unjust acts also evil?  Not all the time, I think.
The way I view evil, it has to have some intent, or conscious willpower behind it.  To be evil the person must think "I am going to..." and then do it.  A person can have good intentions and screw up, but I don't consider the screw up to be evil.  Given the screw up, I'm not sure I could say it was unjust, either.
Next, in an attempt to stay on topic, is the value of justice boolean in nature, or is it variable?  That is, can all we say about an act is that it is just, unjust, or not applicable to a justice value?  Or can we say that some acts are more just than others?
part of me wants to take the latter case, but I'm not sure I can.  Continuing with the Walter Reed example, a just action would get help to the soldiers who need it, and I'm tempted to say a more just action would chance the system that causes this tragedy.  But these are two separate actions in response to the same thing.  I think this works.  A medical analogy would be the difference between putting a bandage over a wound and medicating the wound.
There's a lot more from more modern philosophers who discuss justice, so I can't claim to define it here, but I will.  Justice is a property of an social interaction that judges the action on a scale of morality.  The more an action maximizes good and minimizes bad has more justice than an action that does not.
But am I really adding anything new to the discussion?

Tags: justice

What is the big deal about placing your hand on a Bible when taking on oath of office? Not every president has sworn on a bible (a few have "affirmed" their committment because of religious beliefs about swearing oaths), nor has every senator and representative. So when Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the Congress, requests that he take his oath of office on the Koran, why is this request a shocking, horrifying thing that "undermines American civilization," as Dennis Prager claims?
It isn't. Prager is just blowing racist smoke at the conecpt of multiculutirsm, quoting the Constitution at cross purposes.
UPDATE
I am an idiot. I assumed that the oath of office was on a Bible. According to this article, that is not the case, and Prager apparently has made this up. I can't find anything related to Mr. Ellison that quotes him on the subject.

Tags: politics, religion

According to the BBC, Japan has a patriot bill, but it's not what we Americans would think.  Their bill would put patriotism into the curriculum.  This has people worried.  Japan used nationalism as part of the buildup in WW2.  Nationalism is the median between patriotism and jingoism, as far as I'm concerned.  There's nothing wrong with patriotism.  Love and devotion to your country is not a bad thing, it's a civic virtue, and one that I display and encourage in others.  Patriotism stops at "my country is better than your country."  That's nationalism.  Jingoism is "my country should rule your country."  Jingoism is dangerous.

Tags: patriotism

This is a big one, and it may be the only one I can get to before the election. Proponents argue from emotional scars as parents and teenage girls, they cite the Bible, state that "morality should be public policy," and claim that the judicial bypass works.
Opponents argue that it puts girls in abusive homes at risk, puts doctors at risk, and forces the state to interfere with family life.
I find it interesting that this is a case where "conservative" and "liberal" values flip. Conservatives support this measure. Gubenatorial candidate Ron Saxton paid for his place writing in favor of it. Conservatives traditionally say "get the government out of private lives" and here they ignore that part of their philosophy. Liberals don't mind the government looking out for people, and this is a way of looking out for families, but don't support the enforcement of subjective moral values onto everyone.
Conservatives claim that most every girl has supportive parents. Liberals hold up that there are problematic parents who abuse kids.
Parental notification is already a requirement for girls 14 and younger who wish to abort their pregnancies. All this law claims to do is include 14-17 year olds into that fold.
I think. I dont' read legaleze all that well, but the measure looks like it would force a teenage girl into beaurocratic hell. The person who approves the abortion doesn't have to have any credentials other than the fact that they work at DHS. The person responding to the application doesn't believe in abortion? The application is denied and the teen has to go to trial. Yes, we would have to put these girls on trial, which could delay the process for so long that the girl would have the child, or be abviously pregnant, before it was over. Try hiding that from a parent!
This is a case where your decision as a parent is taken away. You are forced to deal with the issue. you should, but is that the governments job? If they haven't taught you hox to be a good parent by the time your kid is a teenager, you won't learn. If the schools haven't taught your children to have self-respect and good judgement when it comes to sex, well, they'll most likely learn it eventually.
I see the risk of nibbling away at abortion rights, which is what the anti-choice groups do, since even with the Bush administration and a stacked Supreme Court, they can't overturn Roe v. Wade.
I'm voting no. In families that work, a teenage pregnancy isn't going to destroy the family. In families at risk, what will save them?

Tags: abortion, voting

This question is from the first reading (Plato's Apology and Crito) and uses for an example the Dreyfus case in France. A law called for the punishment of traitors, and Captain Dreyfus was punished under this law, but not guilty of treason (I'm looking for a citation, but haven't found one). Another example highlights Sacco and Vanzetti, who may have been innocent. Today, we argue about the supposed guilt of the "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" being held in Gitmo. We argue if the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is legal.
Actually, that is going to muddle the discusssion.  We are considering the times when a just law is applied unjustly, and what the citizen can do about it.
Clearly, we have to examine why the judicial system punished an innocent man.  There are organizations focused on this question, such as the Innocence Project.  We can re-examine cases with new technologies that prove the punished are innocent, and if I remember the interview on the Colbert Report earlier this week, about 40% of convictions are overturned because of this.
I think it's obvious that the cleared person should be freed, but is the state required to give restitution?  I'm sure a pure capitalist would say no: The state has given this person free room and board, fed them, clothed them, and possibly provided them with an education.  They should be let go.  The other side of the coin is to give the person lost wages and free housing until they can get back into the world.
An even stronger reaction is to demand that the law that convicted the person be overturned.  This is taking things too far.  Perhaps the libertarian would argue such.  After all, conservatives believe that since human beings are flawed, the systems they create are flawed, and that includes the government.  The judicial process is constantly evolving, maybe not in the laws, but in the way crimes are investigated.  We have better ways to prove guilt or innocence, and while they are not perfect, they will improve over time.
All this is leading up to the final question of this discussion.  Suppose there is no doubt that a law has been unjustly applied, the wrong man has been accused.  What are we to do?  Does a citizens duty demand obedience or disobedience?
So lets try to imagine something out of the cop dramas on television.  A woman is killed.  A man confesses, even though though he didn't do it.  Perhaps he is protecting the real killer for some reason.  The punishment for this murder is execution.  The man's confession is accepted, and he is sentenced to death.  Assume the punishment is just.  How far should any citizen go to make sure the man is not executed?
As my mind usually does, it starts looks for causes.  Is the punishment necessary?  That is, is it required that the woman's death must be answered with another death, that of the killer?  I'm not questioning the law, but the retributive nature of the law.  Is it possible that we can justly let a murderer avoid punishment?  Okay, there are two sides to this:  Does the first death require retribution?  Does killing someone require the killer's life forfiet to the state? I hope the distinction, fuzzy as it is, is clear.
I don't think that retribution is required as punishment.  I think groups that monitor the justice system to assure that no innocent people are punished (or freed from punishment as soon as possible) are doing the right thing.  Maybe I agree with the conservatives on the point I mentioned earlier:  All human systems are flawed because they are created by human beings.  But, instead of dismissing such systems as ultimately ineffective, or letting "market forces" ensure the success of such systems, I believe that these systems should not be allowed to work in private.  Open the proceedings to the public, and yes, maybe the state should sponsor organizations that act as watchdogs (these good people need to eat and pay rent, too). 
On the legislative side, CSPAN gives citizens (well, Cable subscribers) access to Congress.  The network was founded by various companies in the cable industry as a public service.  They are effected by laws, but not all of them.  They are exempt from the FCC's mandatory ratings, for example, and since Senators have a habit of standing in the pulpit and screaming about things while the senate is not in session, CSPAN was ordered to spin the cameras around to show that the bile is flowing into an empty chamber.
I believe citizens should have the right to demand justice, and to demand that the processes of government are reviewed, but because of the complexity of these systems, we are required to trust those who comment and watch that they are qualified to do so.
As always, this falls on education to teach us and our children how to analyze a source of information.  What makes a watchdog group reliable?
And don't get me started on financing this.  I know running DNA tests are expensive, and we don't allow our police to spend enough money to ensure that every possible tool is used during an investigation.  That's another problem

Tags: judicial system, plato, project innocence

I got one of the most exciting pieces of mail today: my voter's pamphlet. In Oregon, the Secretary of State sends these out explaining each bill and person running for office, with paid endorsements from various parties. Today I got part 1, with the state-wide measures.
The second question in my study guide about just and unjust laws is: Should we obey a law that made unjustly? That is, if the law is reasonable, promotes good things, but wasn't voted on properly, or simply written into law by the executive, is the law justly made?
Nationally, we have legislation that was, as far as anyone can tell, written not by the members of Congress but by lobbyists for specific industries. Mainly, the Bush administration's energy policies and medicare were written by the oil companies and the insurance companies, both of whom have seen record profits since their legislation was passed. Is this enough to call these laws unjust? Is this enough to declare the laws invalid?
But specifically, here in Oregon, a few bills are being criticized for being written and promoted by out-of-state parties. Measures 39 and 40 are both accused of this, and measures 41 and 42 gets some opposition because they were written by Bill Sizemore, who has a shaky past in Oregon's initiative process.
On the other hand, measure 44 has arguments in favor of it by both Ted Kulongoski and Ron Saxton, so there's something these two agree on. This is a separate issue: Does the quality of the endorsements or opposition make a law just or unjust? Clearly, no. Appeal to popularity or liberal political correctness or conservative cliquishness is faulty logic, and shouldn't come into play. IT is just as bad as saying "Oh, gee, Sizemore wrote another one. Well, I'm not going to vote for it!"
So:
1) If the author a bill doesn't live in state, do they have the right to write and produce legislation? In the most practical manner, we can't say no. Some legislation, like measure 43, are built from templates written by national interest groups. If some local organization (or state-wide chapter of a national organization) uses the language from similar initiatives, but the language is still appropriate for Oregon, that is their right. But, I think that someone who doesn't live here shouldn't be allowed to sponsor a measure and get it on the ballot. That's just me. It's not a states-rights thing but a freedom thing. If my right to throw a punch ends before that punch hits your nose, then my right to craft legistlation ends at the state line.
2) Does a person's success rate of getting previous measures passed remove their right to keep trying? No. Of course this is about Sizemore, and just because he's only had one law actually pass and remain constitutional (and it wreaked Oregon's public schools) doesn't mean we can stop him, we just have to put up with him and roll with his punches. Wait, maybe he had two...I think measure 37 was his, it's a dumb enough idea that it could be his.

I'll address each measure in later posts, trying to tie important lessons from my liberating education to each analysis.

Tags: initiative, measure, oregon

Current reading: Plato's Apology and Crito.
(This is long and wandering, clearly an exploration of the issue.  Discuss anything in the comments.)

This is a tough question, because it cuts to the heart of what it means to be a citizen, and when we live in such a divisive political culture, it's hard to see some laws as just or unjust because we tend to see them as "republican" or "democratic¹" laws. 
I would say that an unjust law is one that harms the populace, but even this is hard to define.  What is harm?  To many people, legalized abortion or same-sex marriage is harmful to the populace, to others, the criminization of cannibis is harmful.  And what kind of harm are we talking about?  Physical harm? Emotional harm? Potential harm?  Is a law banning suicide really harmful to the populace.  It's one of the few laws that you cannot be punished for breaking, but you can be punished for attempting it.  In suicide, do you hurt only yourself, or the population around you?
I'm getting abstract when I don't mean to.  Lets say you consider a particular law unjust.  What do you do about it?  The United States Congress recently passed a bill legalizing the NSA wiretapping program. (For a synopsis, check out <a href="http://www.citizenjoe.org/NSA.php">Citizen Joe's summary</a>.)  This is either a)an effective tool for hunting down foreign terrorists on US soil, or b)an effective way for the administration to spy on his constituents without their knowledge.
The fun thing to discuss about this law is that no citizen can choose to obey it.  It is not a law we have to deal with directly (unlike, say, smoking bans or mandatory helmet laws), but one we can discuss to the full.  And we do.  We cannot decide not to be part of the surveillance.  Okay, we can, but look at what the choice costs you: no phone, no internet, and quite possibly no cable or satellite television.  You can live off the grid, but that's asking a lot of a 21st century American.  But the question about the law's validity can be raised.
Is the program now just and legal because Congress said it was fine, even after the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional?  I suppose a just law in America first and foremost has to conform to the Constitution.  A just law cannot contradict the Constitution.  Only the Constitution can do that through the amendment process.  Is the law unjust because it violates our civil liberties and rights of privacy?
In the Apology, Socrates asks Miletus about the improvement of youth.  The charge against Socrates was that he corrupted the youth.  Miletus affirms that the laws improve the youth, as well as the judges and senators.  Thinking in these terms, does the NSA wiretapping law improve us or corrupt us?  Does it make us afraid or terrorism, or less afraid of terrorism?  Does it make us afraid of the government?
Socrates was put to death just after a brief stint when democracy did not rule Athens.  The city-state was rules by an oligarchy called 'the 30.'  Part of the rumors about Socrates included his support of the oligarchy, and his habit of being personally unpleasant, made his state execution understandable from the state's point of view.  This person was insulting to them in general and personally, and declared in public that they knew nothing.
So the state condemned him.  Were they just?  Being careful to keep in mind that their world was different than ours, can we judge them?  Probably not, and it wouldn't do any good, anyway.  All we can say is "it is wrong for the government to condemn a man to death through legislation," which is certainly true.  We have a judicial system to condemn people.  (this makes an interesting side argument: was it right for congress to pass a law ordering Terry Schiavo's feeding tubes? Quick answer: no.) But I think the Senate in Athens were legislative and judicial, unlike America, which separates these two functions.
All of this makes it hard to concentrate on the basic issue I'm trying to discuss: Is the NSA wiretapping just?  Do we have the right, as citizens, to sue the government to stop it?  What recourse do we have, besides voting?  What makes the law just or unjust?

---

¹Referring, of course, to the political parties, not the systems of government to which they may or may not refer.

Tags: nsa, plato, wiretapping