Sex Differences

Press release from the Duke Institute for Genome Scienses and Policy. There's also an article in Nature magazine that suggests that the fact that women have two X chromosomes and men only one explains higher incidence of mental disability among men.

Larry Summers got himself into alot of trouble by hypothesizing that there may be differences in the variability of traits that may be correlated with interest or ability in math and physics, that is, that the standard deviation around the mean -- which is probably the same -- for this unnamed trait may differ between men and women.

It'll be interesting to watch the reaction to these studies.

Legal Issues Involving Healthcare Directives, Death, and Dying

FindLaw has set up special coverage on the Terri Shiavo case with the most recent documents accessible from a single page.

FindLaw Legal News: Special Coverage: Terri Schiavo Case: Legal Issues Involving Healthcare Directives, Death, and Dying

Update: I drafted a Living Will today with a section specifying instructions in the event of PVS. I want to avoid anything like this Terri Schiavo spectacle. I was very grateful that my Dad had had the foresight to have a Living Will. It relieves the family of an intolerable burden.

Scalia on God's Justice and Ours

According to my anonymous commenter, Scalia says the US government derives its mandate from God rather than from the consent of the governed. Here's a link to Scalia's address as published in First Things: God's Justice and Ours

Judge for yourself whether this is an accurate representation of Scalia's view. Scalia appeals to Romans 13:1-5 to illuminate the difference between public morality and private morality. St. Paul argued that governments have the authority to do things private individuals shouldn't. The argument is the same whether it refers to incarceration or the death penalty. No individual has the right to hold another prisoner in his home.

Scalia is expounding his own views as a sincere Catholic, but begins with this clear statement:

Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”—that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.

Lack of Moral Clarity (continued)

Looking for information about rulings on the Shiavo case I came across this interesting bit:

Some disturbing facts about the Schiavo case:

• After Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990, she became profoundly cognitively disabled.
• Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.
• A jury awarded $1.3 million in the malpractice case, of which $750,000 was put in trust to pay for the kind of care that Michael promised to provide Terri.
• Michael never kept his promise.
• Within months of the money being deposited in the bank, Michael ordered a do-not-resuscitate order placed on Terri's chart. He has also repeatedly denied her other forms of medical care, such as treatment for infections.
• Once the money was in the bank, according to affidavits filed by nurses under penalty of perjury, Michael ordered that Terri be denied stimulation.
• In the mid 1990s, according to another nurse's affidavit filed under penalty of perjury, Michael was overheard saying things such as, 'When is she going to die,' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch going to die?' (This affidavit was only recently filed. Michael has not yet filed a response.)
• Michael dated after the malpractice trial; he is now engaged to be married. He lives with his fiance, with whom he has one child and another on the way. He reportedly plans to marry his fiance as soon as his wife's death is induced.
• Money that was intended to pay for Terri's treatment and rehabilitation has instead gone to lawyers Michael retained to obtain a court order to bring about her death.
• If Terri dies, Michael will inherit what is left of the $750,000 (if any remains) and all other property they owned."

Lack of Moral Clarity

Sometimes I wonder at my lack of moral clarity on an issue that others seem so convinced about. I'm talking about Terri Shiavo. I feel an ambivalence about this issue I probably shouldn't.

1) I don't understand why the federal legislature is intervening in this case, especially since they are looking to pass legislation specific only to her. How is this not an encroachment on the judiciary, in violation of constitutional separation of powers? The precedent established by this act will probably have a long-term adverse affect we cannot see now.

2) The examples I've read of people recovering from a Persistent Vegetative State are all inaccurate. They confuse lock-in, where there is continuing cognitive function, with PVS, where there is none.

3) Withdrawing nourishment and hydration is not the same as unplugging a respirator. A baby can breathe on its own, but cannot feed itself. Not giving Terri water seems more morally repulsive than pulling the plug on a respirator would be.

4) I don't understand the husband's motives; they seem inherently suspect anyway. He has moved on and has a new family. But he has not yet remarried because Terri remains alive. Doesn't he have a disqualifying interest in her death? Has anyone else confirmed that this would be Terri's wish? Her family is on the other side on this.

5) If her family is willing to care for her at their expense, why shouldn't they? The husband believes she is unaware and will never recover. What harm is there, then, in continuing to sustain her?

Textualism

I started reading Scalia Dissents this morning. Scalia refers to himself as a "textualist." I like that. I'm going to start calling myself that.

Scalia is one of the great judicial writers, comparable, in my view, to Oliver Wendell Holmes, though less poetic.

I read Scalia because I am intensely interested in the topic, but he is also one of those writers I'd read just to enjoy the style. Others include: Loren Eiseley, H.L. Mencken, Bertrand Russell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Annie Dillard. Michael Nozick is an absolutely brilliant philosopher. I rarely agree with these writers, but I have to admire their style. Tom Wolfe, too, is always entertaining. His book, The Painted Word, is his most insightful.

Basketball Brackets

I was feeling pretty good after the first round. Best I've ever done. I even picked some of the great upsets. I had UW-Milw over Alabama, Vermont over Syracuse, UAB over LSU, Iowa State over Minnesota, among others. I missed Bucknell over Kansas. Did anyone in the country get that one? I also thought Creighton might upset West Virginia, so I missed that, too.

My second round is the worst I've ever done: Boston College out, Gonzaga out, Wake Forest out, Kansas out, Oklahoma out. Three of my picks for the Elite Eight are already gone, and one pick for the Final Four (Wake).

What destruction to my bracket will today bring? I've got the remaining ACC teams winning today, even NC State over UConn.

Iraqi Civilians Dead

Could this really be true? Could a medical journal really publish a study based on such a flawed methodology? And, how could the media repeat this "finding" without any qualification?

100,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead

95% confident that the actual number of Iraqi civilians dead is between 8,000 and 194,000. The constantly repeated the number, 98,000, is the midpoint between these two ends.

U.S. Constitution: Made in Jamaica?

Here's another article on the same topic, Supreme Court justices' use of international law to aid in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Townhall.com Editors: U.S. Constitution: Made in Jamaica?

Please note that I've reverted to my old template for this blog.

"We the People"?

Interesting article on Scalia's debate with Breyer on the use of international law in deciding Supreme Court cases. Scalia's sarcasm is entirely warranted. Kennedy and Breyer are very selective in their use of cases. Though they often refer to an international consensus they have never in fact cited Asian law. Given the sheer size of the Asian population it's hard to see how there can be an international consensus without them. Europe is not the world. And they obviously pay no attention to wide-spread international condemnation of abortion and homosexuality. Why is Muslim Sharia law excluded from consideration? Probably because they both find it repugnant. But then that just proves that they select international precedent which supports their already-held views.

The Claremont Institute: What Happened to "We the People"?

The ongoing debate about constitutional interpretation ought to be of keen interest to the Christian. No where else do we see with such clarity the effect of subjective morality and of postmodern hermeneutics on social policy. Unlike the cloistered theorizing of academics, Supreme Court decisions have real consequences on real people.

Judicial Confirmation Statistics

Very good table of stats on judicial confirmations. Fewer than 40% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed. Even Clinton got 61% of his nominees confirmed. I'm not sure if his midnight nominees count in the number returned.

Daly Thoughts

The decline in confirmations since Ford I think is largely due to the ascendancy of the view of the constitution as a "living document." Previously the primary qualification of a Supreme Court Justice was that he/she be a good lawyer especially skilled in reading and writing. If the meaning of the Constitution is fixed, the intent of its framers as understood by its ratifiers, then a good justice is one who is particularly skilled at applying fixed principles to new and unforeseen circumstances. Confirmation of a justice is simply affirmation of his/her competence.

The "living constitution," however, requires different skills: imagination, creativity, and policy-making ability. A judge creates new principles. He/she is a law-maker for life. The confirmation process is not an evaluation simply of technical skill, but an effort to discern the nominee's legislative agenda, whether the nominee's views are "moderate," representing the "will of the people."

Democratic senators unintentionally came clean on this yesterday at their MoveOn press conference. Barbara Boxer, arguing for a supermajority vote on judicial appointments in violation of the Constitution,

"There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."

Boxer's statement makes sense only if a judge's role is basically the same as a legislator's. Yes, it is "scary." But you would think that this fear and anxiety would lead to some introspection, to asking some basic questions. Maybe this is not a flaw in the Constitution, but a mistaken judicial philosophy. Would the framers of the Constitution, very careful and nuanced thinkers, simply overlook a needed "check and balance" that's so blatantly obvious to a less-than-astute thinker such as Barbara Boxer?

Of course not. Judges needed no check on their legislative authority because they had none! Neither did they stand for election; they had no constituency to represent.

The answer is not to require a supermajority for confirmation but to repudiate the judicial philosophy that led to this absurd idea.

Update: Daly Thoughts has a number of updates to stats on Circuit Court nominations adjusting for the effect of renominations. The numbers change fairly dramatically but still support the charge of obstructionism.

Beirut - Lebanon freedom protests at Martyr's Square Beirut - QTVR photos from panoramas.dk

Really cool panoramic picture of demonstration in Beirut.

Beirut - Lebanon freedom protests at Martyr's Square Beirut - QTVR photos from panoramas.dk

ThreeBadFingers Constitutional Interpretation

A blogger had done us all a service by transcribing Justice Antonin Scalia's talk on constituional interpretation at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Video of the talk is available at c-span.org.

Constitutional Interpretation

The State's Interest in Marriage?

What is the Public Purpose of Marriage?:

"The debate over whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally 'marry' is not about rights, equality, or discrimination, despite the often heated rhetoric to that effect. Still less is it about the allocation of an entitlement package of legal rights and financial benefits. Instead, this is a question of definition--how do we define the social institution we call marriage? To answer that we must ask, What is the public purpose of marriage?

Please note that I said the public purpose of marriage. The private purposes for which people enter into marriage may be as diverse as the people themselves. Homosexual activists sometimes argue that they want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals do--out of a desire for love and companionship.

But I ask you--are interpersonal love and companionship really the business of government? Would we even tolerate the government issuing licenses and regulating entry and exit into relationships whose only or even principal purpose is emotional attachment? I submit to you that the answer is no."

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

The Connecticut state Judiciary Committee has a very different view, as do many of our state senators. State Rep. Toni Walker's explanation of the state's interest in recognizing same-sex marriage, "I love my friends and I want my friends to love who they want to love." (Feb 23rd, Judiciary Committee deliberations) I guess representatives in Connecticut are not elected to represent the state's interest but their friends'.

State senator Thomas J. Herlihy answered our letter to him, "This is a matter of civil rights, and everyone should have the right to share their lives with the person they love whether that love is between two men or two women." This is equally silly. Civil union legislation is not about anti-sodomy laws nor about restrictions on cohabitation. It is about conferring the state of Connecticut's endorsement on this form of love. It is about conferring benefits, social protections and priviledged status on a relationship.

If it really is a matter of rights, anyone who loves has the right to have the state recognize that love, then what right does the state have to forbid incest or polygamy or place age restrictions on marriage? Or does the state then claim the ability to discern true love from deluded love? And, how does it do that? Does the state use the DSM IV as its guide? Does the DSM IV then become a legislative document?

Filibusters

The New York Times' view of filibusters when used by Republicans:

the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

when used by Democrats:

the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod

From the Weekly Standard, Air America, New York Times, and more.: "Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item"

Judiciary Math

Silliness in Connecticut's state Judiciary Committee continues. The committee voted to repeal the state's death penalty this week by an overwhelming majority. Video of the discussion is found at the CT-N web site.

Michael Lawlor, co-chair of the committee, has obviously learned his math from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who claimed that a minority of states constitutes a "national consensus" in the Roper case. One of the reasons Connecticut ought to repeal the death penalty, according to Lawlor, is that "only a few states, 38, allow the death penalty." So, according to his math 76% constitutes "a few," and, I guess, 24% is "a lot."

To be fair, Lawlor added that two states, New York and Kansas, "have the death penalty in abeyance, bringing the total down to 36, and New Hampshire doesn't have any inmates on death row." So, I guess he isn't completely hopeless. He does know how to subtract. He can take 3 away from 38 to get 35. It's just relative magnitude he has a problem with: big and small, bigger and smaller.

The death penalty deserves thorough discussion. Even strong supporters of the death penalty may have concerns about its implementation and may question whether there is equity in its enforcement. However, the quality of discussion in this Judiciary Committee is appalling. It has been shocking to see the absence of logic in much of their reasoning; now we have to question their knowledge of basic math, too.

This is a symptom of the new hermeneutic as applied to judicial reasoning, the meaning of a text is whatever I can get away with and still sound rational. Stubborn arithmetic used to be exempt from such radical subjectivism, but no longer.

The Phoniest Argument

Yesterday we received a letter from our state senator, Thomas Herlihy (R CT 8th District), saying that he will be voting for the same-sex civil unions bill when it comes to the senate. He has only one reason for supporting the bill, "I personally believe that this is a matter of civil rights, and everyone should have the right to share their lives with the person they love whether that love be between two men or two women."

This is clearly absurd -- the bill is not about who loves whom -- yet the appeal to "civil rights" trumps all rational argument. Thomas Sowell had an interesting, if sometimes brutal, commentary on the issue on his blog last December, Thomas Sowell: Gay marriage 'rights'

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges -- for anybody -- and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

In the Womb

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/preview.html

Looks like amazing video!

Voting for Worldviews

John Piper has a great sermon on same-sex marriage at the Desiring God web site: Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage

Here's an especially relevant excerpt:

Thus we should pray and work that marriage would be understood and treated in our land and by our government as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.

If someone asks, Why do you impose your religious conviction on the whole culture, we answer: all laws impose convictions on a culture. And all convictions come from worldviews. They don’t come out of nowhere. People argue for laws on the basis of a certain view of the world. What needs to be kept clear is that voting for a law (a prescribed or proscribed behavior) does not mean voting for the worldview behind it.

A person with an atheistic worldview may argue that, since there is no God, human life is the most sacred thing there is and therefore it is appalling to kill little humans in the womb. Or a Christian may argue that, since there is a God, humans created in his image ought not to be killed in the womb. Therefore a pro-life vote may not be a vote for either worldview. The same thing is true for the meaning of marriage. The way laws (and amendments) come into being in a pluralistic democracy like ours is the convergence of enough different worldviews on the same prescription for behavior—when enough people with different worldviews have the same idea of how we ought to behave.

Being an indigenous Christian in that setting means working to shape the culture into behaviors that reflect the revealed will of God, even if only externally, and dimly, and embraced by mercy for very different reasons than our own.

John's distinctions are very helpful but Connecticut's lawmakers don't even pretend to be concerned only with regulating external behavior.

Rep. Michael Lawlor is transparent about his desire to legislate private attitudes. He is not prescribing behavior, he is imposing a worldview, "public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this ... That's what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgment that homosexuality simply apprears to be a normally occurring phenomenon in nature." Lawlor offers no rationale for proposing same-sex marriage legislation, he identifies no interest of the state in this, except as a symbol that homosexuality is normal and natural.

Sen. Andrew McDonald's rationale is that same-sex couples are required "to justify to the outside world the love that you have in your heart and that is wrong. That is wrong and unacceptable." Again, though he claims he doesn't want to undermine anyone's religious faith, he, nevertheless, asserts that "the people" of Connecticut have decided to confer respect and moral approval on same-sex couples.

Against what John Piper describes as the norm, laws regulating external behavior merely, the co-chairmen of our Judiciary Committee led our legislators to endorse a worldview; behavior is just symbolic.

Who is imposing beliefs in Connecticut, now?

Governor Rell Backs Same-Sex Civil Unions

According to the Hartford Courant, Governor Jodi Rell has joined the ranks of those Republicans seeking political cover by endorsing a same-sex civil unions bill while at the same time proclaiming opposition to same-sex marriage.

Rell has said repeatedly that she is opposed to same-sex marriage, but until Tuesday she had given mixed signals on civil unions that would convey to same-sex couples nearly all the rights of marriage.

The Hartford Courant, of course, is less than honest when they claim the bill conveys "nearly all" the rights of marriage. The bill conveys all the rights of marriage a state can convey. The only rights not conveyed are federal benefits outside the jurisdiction of the state, such as federal Social Security benefits.

I find this attempt to fool the citizens of the state of Connecticut insulting and offensive. The gay and lesbian lobby represented by Love Makes a Family is equally offended.

I have just sent the following letter to Governor Rell.

Office of the Governor
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106


Governor Rell:

Announcing that you are opposed to same-sex marriage but in favor of same-sex civil unions is not believable.

1) If someone enters into a marriage and also into a civil union he or she commits bigamy. So, if by entering into a civil union one can violate a marriage law then a civil union is marriage.

2) The same-sex civil unions bill confers all of the same rights, without exception, as a same-sex marriage bill would. Sen. Andrew McDonald tried to sidestep this during the Judiciary Committee hearing on February 23rd by claiming that civil unions do not confer federal benefits such as Social Security benefits or immigration protection. However, this was transparently disingenuous. No state law, whether on marriage or civil unions, can confer federal benefits.

3) During the Judiciary Committee meetings and public hearings members of the committee use these terms interchangeably.

Nobody is fooled by this. If you are in favor of same-sex civil unions you are also in favor of same-sex marriage.

The citizens of this state ought to be given the chance to vote on a referendum regarding same-sex marriage. Anything short of this is dishonest and manipulative.

The legislature of the state of Connecticut is very busy congratulating itself for taking this issue on without the threat of a court order. However, this process is no less sneaky. And, these legislators have somehow overlooked the pending cases of same-sex couples suing for the right to marry, maybe because they're so busy patting themselves on the back they can't see what's right in front of them.

A state-wide referendum on same-sex marriage would be much more honest. Let's call it what it is, and let's vote on it.