a good walk spoiled

I was out walking with my dogs, who, admittedly, were more interested in the ground squirrels than in the walk.



Where I live is considered "short grass prairie", but after 4 years of drought, it's more like "desert". Still, I like it and I find the empty landscape beautiful in its own way.








So I was unhappy to find that my own little piece of prairie had been sullied by the bad habits of my neighbor.

My property is shaped like a tetris piece, and this particular neighbor owns 40 acres tucked into one of the jags in my place. He doesn't live there, he just stores a (growing) pile of junk right along the fence line. It is, after all, his right to keep whatever he wants on his side of the fence. I have to say, though, I always find it irritating that he pushes up so close to the fence. Given that, it was inevitable that a good, strong, south wind would cause problems, and it did.

coincidence, correlation, and causality

Two or more things happen. What do we say about them? More and more in our public discourse, I see signs of a hasty and lazy leap to the conclusion of a causal relationship when there is barely any reason to believe in even a correlation. Some definitions:

• Coincidence - two or more things happening. For my purposes, they don't even need to be said to happen at the same time.
  
• Correlation - two or more things whose occurrence is (are?) connected. It could be that one thing always happens when one or more other thing happens, or only if something else doesn't happen, or ...
• Causality - one or more thing whose occurrence is a direct result of one or more (other) thing.
  

It is the purview of science, or at least the scientific method, to establish what relationship exists, if any, among events. A tree falls on my car and my wife calls her mother. Coincidence, probably. A tree falls on my car and the wind blows. There could be a causal relationship there but there really isn't any basis, just from these two events, to conclude that there is one.

Establishing causality, as opposed to making it up, is hard. Often in science, particularly in physics, the scientist develops a model that fits some (hopefully, all) the data associated with a particular phenomenon or observation. A model is not the same as physical reality. It is useful precisely because it is a simplification of reality. If a model works, then it is often possible to derive causal relationships (mathematically) from the model. Even then, the validity of that causality is only conditional on the model. It is frequently the case that the prediction of causal relationships is what allows a model to be tested, and discarded. Without a model, that is, in reality, establishing a causal relationship as opposed to a correlation, is often impossible.

Politicians are, in my opinion, the worst offenders, because their intellectual laziness has the broadest effect. Every time a politician says "...because...", examine the foundation for the causal relationship. Mostly, there won't be any. Bush says "the economy is strong because of our tax cuts". Wrong on so many levels. First of all, I don't see much evidence that the economy is strong. But, that aside, how do we know anything about a causal relationship between the tax cuts and the strength (or weakness) of the economy? They're just two pieces of (varyingly believable) information.

immigration

I'm trying to understand the current fuss about immigration, illegal or otherwise. What if, instead of Mexico, Colorado were being flooded with transplants from, say, Kentucky. What would we do? Surely, those new Coloradans would be competing with those already here for jobs. Would we tell them they couldn't come? More likely, we would, as a nation, address the issue in Kentucky that was causing them to leave.

I know, really I do: Mexico is a foreign country. But here's the point: we have a trillion dollar deficit. We're spending money we don't have to fight in Iraq. We're spending money we don't have to fix the levies in New Orleans. And now we're going to spend more money we don't have to do what everyone knows will not solve the problem of immigrants coming across the Mexican border. I'd rather spend less money to fix the problem, rather than more money to just act tough. The United States should work with the Mexican government to address problems in the Mexican economy that force (yes, force) people to seek jobs here. It would be cheaper in the short term, way cheaper in the long term, and it might actually work.

the case for impeachment

Conservative leaders are fond of criticizing what they call "activist judges" for interpreting laws in a culturally relative way. We are admonished by these leaders, in Congress, in the press, and in the Supreme Court that an appropriate view of the law, especially the Constitution, is the "strict constructionist" view where the framers' original intent is rigorously and narrowly implemented. Liberals, on the other hand, will tell us that the authors of the Constitution, living as they did in the 18th century, could not have foreseen many of the complex obstacles to legal interpretation that pertain in our modern world. Well, one thingthe framers clearly understood was the war on terrorism.

Under British colonial rule, the American colonies were subject to raids, arrests, and all manner of indignities perpetrated by the government in pursuit of threats to their established order. Sometimes it was hostile natives. Sometimes it was French provocateurs. Sometimes, more frequently as the Revolution approached, it was home-grown American revolutionaries fomenting disobedience to the Crown. But always it was the British government's claim that their own actions were in defense of order against "those who would do us harm" (terrorists). So, over the centuries, while much has changed, this, at least, has not. Then, as now, governments felt challenged by demons, real and imagined, and answered that challenge with war.

With this history in mind, the framers of the Constitution and its first 10 ammendments (the Bill of Rights) set about to establish a government regulated by laws. In particular, then Congressman James Madison had Britain's war on terrorism in mind when he delineated the separation of powers in the Constitution and the rights of individuals against unwarranted searches in the Bill of Rights (ammendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."). The war on terrorism, or any war, is no excuse for violating these laws.

President Bush has stated openly that he knowingly and willingly directed warrantless searches against American citizens. He said that the war on terrorism permits him to take this action. The framers of the constitution clearly foresaw this condition when they wrote the laws defining our republic. A strict constructionist interpretation of the law dictates that there is absolutely no ambiguity in this case. The conservatives can't have it both ways. If they truly believe in the principle of original intent, they should stand up for it. If only there were a spine to be found in the halls of Congress, the President should be removed from office.

patriotism in a nation of laws

What does it mean to be a patriot? I sense that there is an ugly sentiment among the populace that any exercise of dissent, indeed, any exercise of the liberties that define America, is un-patriotic. In my opinion, quite the reverse is true.

We are a nation of laws. That used to be unique; it's still something to be proud of. We are a nation founded on principles of reason and tolerance. The very essence of patriotism, therefore, is the honoring of those principles and respect for those laws. How can it be un-patriotic, in and of itself, to disagree with the majority? The foundation of our republic is the compromise among strong competing interests (federalism and state's rights, big and small, North and South). I submit that the strength of our constitution, the codification of what patriots supposedly honor, is directly proportional to the magnitude of its compromises.

Nor can it be un-patriotic to be wrong. Charles Lindberg supported Hitler. Nobody can claim that Lindy was not a patriot. Yet, no one would argue that the thousands of Americans who went to war to defeat Hitler were not patriots, too. So, Lindy was wrong. That doesn't diminish his patriotism.

So, who might we say is not patriotic? I believe that those who would subvert the laws of government, the Constitution, to a regime of anti-libertarian "crackdowns" are anti-American. Those who would involve the U. S. in "foreign entanglements" (as George Washington called them) for other than the public's interest are anti-American. Those who would seek to make America intolerant are anti-American. Those who would have America act in ways that are not supported by reasoned argument are anti-American. Lying to Congress about Medicare; lying to the world about terrorist activities; suspending due process for citizens (and non-citizens, for that matter); leaking the names of covert operatives for political revenge; these actions are fundamentally anti-American and, indeed, illegal.

For starters

I have known for some time now that all the cool kids were blogging. Never having been cool, nor having much to say, I hadn't signed up, myself. I'm still not cool. It turns out, however, that I occasionally think of things I want to say. Next time, I'll be ready.