Begging The Question
In light of the President's controversial immigration proposal, and last night's episode of ER, I was reminded of a Seventh Circuit case I saw last week, Oforji v. Ashcroft. Howard Bashman mentioned it here and called Judge Posner's concurring opinion (starting on page 16 of the 22-page pdf) a "must-read." I concur with Howard.
This is an immigration case, and I should say at the outset that what I know about immigration law could fit on a postage stamp. The facts are distressing but not terribly unusual. A Nigerian woman, Doris Oforji, sought asylum because she feared that her two U.S.-born daughters (aged 6 and 4) would be subject to "female circumcision" or "female genital mutilation" (FGM) if she took them to Nigeria upon her removal from the United States. (Oforji tried to enter the U.S. without proper documentation and was charged with "seeking to procure entry by fraud.") All the lower-level decision makers within the INS (now part of the DHS) denied her request for asylum, and in this opinion last week the Seventh Circuit affirmed. So, Oforji is faced with a pretty tough choice: leave her children here and cast them unto the welfare/foster care system or take them with her to Nigeria where they would probably face FGM.
I won't get into the issue of FGM here; Posner makes a point to note that we don't call male circumcision "mutilation." And, without trying to pass along knowledge I don't have, you should note that under certain circumstances, the threat of FGM can be enough to warrant asylum. Here, Oforji didn't meet the test, and you can read the opinion if you want to know why not.
Anyway, on to the part of the opinion that interested me most. Posner suggests that none of this would have been a problem if we didn't have a policy that granted U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the United States (known as "jus soli"). If these girls weren't citizens, they'd be a lot easier to shuttle off to Nigeria. (Again, I'm severely oversimplifying things, but at bottom we wouldn't be faced with the same tough choices in this case.)
According to Posner,
Posner says we should "remove the incentive" of women to come to America to give birth by refusing to grant citizenship to their children. In his opinion, this would not be unconstitutional. I haven't taken the time to read the law review articles Posner cites in support of that proposition, but color me dubious.
Posner asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what it seems to say because Congress has made exceptions to the rule in the past, for children of certain diplomats and visiting heads of state. Isn't an equally strong (if not stronger) argument that Congress's exception is itself unconstitutional, and the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to whatever little Tony Blairs that happen to be born here? At best, this seems like a thin reed for Posner to cling to.
Posner goes on to express support for the passage of H.R. 1567, a bill that would "deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Again, I don't think you have to be an immigration law expert to know that this bill has about as much chance of going over as a pregnant pole-vaulter (one of my brother's favorite phrases).
Hispanics are a large and growing voting bloc both parties are aiming for. What percentage of Hispanic voters are themselves children of illegal immigrants, or at least know such a person? Heck, what percentage of Americans know someone who fits that definition? If this bill actually makes it through Congress, George Bush might even christen his "veto" stamp on this one.
Randy Tunac, the author of immigration law blog The Manifest Border, who actually does know what he's talking about, notes that Posner is focusing on citizenship-mills and extreme cases like Yaser Hamdi to make his point. But he says nothing about the vast majority of citizens his proposal would affect. Tunac suggests the perfectly reasonable alternative of simply not granting tourist visas to women who are pregnant. This would eliminate most of the cases to which Posner refers. (Note also that Oforji was pregnant when she tried to enter the U.S.)
I'm not as fond of Tunac's other solution, which is to postpone the grant of citizenship for 14 years. If the kid lives here that long, he or she becomes a citizen and that citizenship reverts to the date of birth. Leaving aside the administrability concerns of trying to prove continuous residence and what to do about kids who die before age 14 (reminds me of a Rule Against Perpetuities hypo), that isn't what the Fourteenth Amendment says.
I'm no literalist, generally, but the citizenship clause is clear. Yes, as Posner points out, the Amendment was passed after the Civil War to retroactively grant citizenship to slaves. But the principle behind it is even clearer than the text. If you're born here, you're an American; you've won the lottery. We shouldn't be making that dependent on how long you (really, your parents, because you're a minor) live here after that. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendmenrt was to correct the awful mistake of slavery. The slaves properly should have been citizens from the day they were born in America. With the Amendment's passge, we were setting things right, not granting some gratutity that can be freely withdrawn when we are faced with the unpleasant fact that our immigration system isn't perfect.
Bush's "guest worker" immigration plan depends on much the same principle: We have always welcomed people who want to come here and take part in America and work honestly and pay their taxes -- and have kids who will be citizens themselves, from the moment they're born.
I don't think I've ever argued in terms of "natural rights" (even though I do believe in some), but I think people have a natural right to be a citizen of wherever they are born. Yes, that gives pregnant women an "incentive" to try to sneak into America. And yes, it strains our social services system to care for all these kids. But these mothers (and fathers) are trying to give their children the golden ticket, American citizenship. I'm not saying we should open the borders or not enforce the laws -- and I would support the visa rules change Tunac mentions. But Posner's approach is unpragmatic and misguided. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
This is an immigration case, and I should say at the outset that what I know about immigration law could fit on a postage stamp. The facts are distressing but not terribly unusual. A Nigerian woman, Doris Oforji, sought asylum because she feared that her two U.S.-born daughters (aged 6 and 4) would be subject to "female circumcision" or "female genital mutilation" (FGM) if she took them to Nigeria upon her removal from the United States. (Oforji tried to enter the U.S. without proper documentation and was charged with "seeking to procure entry by fraud.") All the lower-level decision makers within the INS (now part of the DHS) denied her request for asylum, and in this opinion last week the Seventh Circuit affirmed. So, Oforji is faced with a pretty tough choice: leave her children here and cast them unto the welfare/foster care system or take them with her to Nigeria where they would probably face FGM.
I won't get into the issue of FGM here; Posner makes a point to note that we don't call male circumcision "mutilation." And, without trying to pass along knowledge I don't have, you should note that under certain circumstances, the threat of FGM can be enough to warrant asylum. Here, Oforji didn't meet the test, and you can read the opinion if you want to know why not.
Anyway, on to the part of the opinion that interested me most. Posner suggests that none of this would have been a problem if we didn't have a policy that granted U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the United States (known as "jus soli"). If these girls weren't citizens, they'd be a lot easier to shuttle off to Nigeria. (Again, I'm severely oversimplifying things, but at bottom we wouldn't be faced with the same tough choices in this case.)
According to Posner,
[t]his rule, though thought by some compelled by section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," and in any event codified in 8 U.S.C. ยง 1401(a), which provides that "the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," makes no sense.
Posner says we should "remove the incentive" of women to come to America to give birth by refusing to grant citizenship to their children. In his opinion, this would not be unconstitutional. I haven't taken the time to read the law review articles Posner cites in support of that proposition, but color me dubious.
Posner asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't mean what it seems to say because Congress has made exceptions to the rule in the past, for children of certain diplomats and visiting heads of state. Isn't an equally strong (if not stronger) argument that Congress's exception is itself unconstitutional, and the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to whatever little Tony Blairs that happen to be born here? At best, this seems like a thin reed for Posner to cling to.
Posner goes on to express support for the passage of H.R. 1567, a bill that would "deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Again, I don't think you have to be an immigration law expert to know that this bill has about as much chance of going over as a pregnant pole-vaulter (one of my brother's favorite phrases).
Hispanics are a large and growing voting bloc both parties are aiming for. What percentage of Hispanic voters are themselves children of illegal immigrants, or at least know such a person? Heck, what percentage of Americans know someone who fits that definition? If this bill actually makes it through Congress, George Bush might even christen his "veto" stamp on this one.
Randy Tunac, the author of immigration law blog The Manifest Border, who actually does know what he's talking about, notes that Posner is focusing on citizenship-mills and extreme cases like Yaser Hamdi to make his point. But he says nothing about the vast majority of citizens his proposal would affect. Tunac suggests the perfectly reasonable alternative of simply not granting tourist visas to women who are pregnant. This would eliminate most of the cases to which Posner refers. (Note also that Oforji was pregnant when she tried to enter the U.S.)
I'm not as fond of Tunac's other solution, which is to postpone the grant of citizenship for 14 years. If the kid lives here that long, he or she becomes a citizen and that citizenship reverts to the date of birth. Leaving aside the administrability concerns of trying to prove continuous residence and what to do about kids who die before age 14 (reminds me of a Rule Against Perpetuities hypo), that isn't what the Fourteenth Amendment says.
I'm no literalist, generally, but the citizenship clause is clear. Yes, as Posner points out, the Amendment was passed after the Civil War to retroactively grant citizenship to slaves. But the principle behind it is even clearer than the text. If you're born here, you're an American; you've won the lottery. We shouldn't be making that dependent on how long you (really, your parents, because you're a minor) live here after that. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendmenrt was to correct the awful mistake of slavery. The slaves properly should have been citizens from the day they were born in America. With the Amendment's passge, we were setting things right, not granting some gratutity that can be freely withdrawn when we are faced with the unpleasant fact that our immigration system isn't perfect.
Bush's "guest worker" immigration plan depends on much the same principle: We have always welcomed people who want to come here and take part in America and work honestly and pay their taxes -- and have kids who will be citizens themselves, from the moment they're born.
I don't think I've ever argued in terms of "natural rights" (even though I do believe in some), but I think people have a natural right to be a citizen of wherever they are born. Yes, that gives pregnant women an "incentive" to try to sneak into America. And yes, it strains our social services system to care for all these kids. But these mothers (and fathers) are trying to give their children the golden ticket, American citizenship. I'm not saying we should open the borders or not enforce the laws -- and I would support the visa rules change Tunac mentions. But Posner's approach is unpragmatic and misguided. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Stoked" does not even begin to describe how I feel today now that my new edition of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual arrived!
Which is more strange: (1) I agree with Justice Scalia's dissent in Mistretta that the Sentencing Commission and Guidelines are unconstitutional, but I still really like working on Guidelines cases; or (2) On my computer at work, the Sentencing Commission web site is on my "favorites" list, but BTQ is not.
Which is more strange: (1) I agree with Justice Scalia's dissent in Mistretta that the Sentencing Commission and Guidelines are unconstitutional, but I still really like working on Guidelines cases; or (2) On my computer at work, the Sentencing Commission web site is on my "favorites" list, but BTQ is not.
I want to thank Mark Lewis, author of Acquire, Identify, Engage for blogrolling BTQ. Frankly, I am not sure we warrant such status, but I am pleased to see that some folks (besides my family members) enjoy reading BTQ.
Mr. Lewis's blog is a terrific source for thoughtful analysis of military-related matters. His most recent posts deal with training / safety issues in the military and Howard Dean's contention that Saddam's capture has not made Americans safer. Go take a look. You won't be disappointed.
Mr. Lewis's blog is a terrific source for thoughtful analysis of military-related matters. His most recent posts deal with training / safety issues in the military and Howard Dean's contention that Saddam's capture has not made Americans safer. Go take a look. You won't be disappointed.
To the tune of Van Morrison's Brown-Eyed Girl.
*Yes, I recognize that labeling this "#1" is as pretentious as calling your first greatest-hits album "Volume One." But I think I can do better. I heard Brown-Eyed Girl on the radio tonight and the song started coming to me. The lines are open; make your requests now.
Hey, where'd we come from?
Hey, what's this new blog?
Linked to by Feddie,
And blog rhymes with egg nog!
Postin' and a-linkin', hey, hey,
Writin' and a-quotin'.
Early morning posts with
Trial balloons a-floatin',
And you, my BTQ.
You, my BTQ!
So what's the story
With Fitz-Hume and Milbarge?
Which one's Beetle Bailey,
And which one is his Sarge?
Easy now, it's nothing like that --
They're just two old friends.
One is a smart guy,
The other one pretends.
They're your BTQ.
You're my BTQ!
Do you remember when we used to sing,
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh BTQ,
Just like that!
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh BTQ,
BTQ!
Not hard to find the site,
We're with you all day long.
And if we get no feedback,
I'll write another song.
Cast your mouses back here, folks,
Somedays we have some real content!
Here's a shout-out to may*star,
And all of you readers
Of your, your BTQ.
We're your BTQ!
Do you remember when we used to sing,
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh BTQ!
Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh BTQ,
BTQ!
*Yes, I recognize that labeling this "#1" is as pretentious as calling your first greatest-hits album "Volume One." But I think I can do better. I heard Brown-Eyed Girl on the radio tonight and the song started coming to me. The lines are open; make your requests now.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
1. Elvis Presley (1935) and Stephen Hawking (1942) were both born on January 8. And no, I did not discover this because I'm working on a song about the sun being a hunka hunka burnin' gas. That's been done.
2. I'm not sure I can pinpoint exactly when it happened, but E.R. has jumped the shark.
3. The song I've had stuck in my head lately is Elvis Costello's Alison. Let's just say it reminds me of some women I've known in my life. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
2. I'm not sure I can pinpoint exactly when it happened, but E.R. has jumped the shark.
3. The song I've had stuck in my head lately is Elvis Costello's Alison. Let's just say it reminds me of some women I've known in my life. Not that I'm bitter or anything.
It looks like Will has called me out. Will presents a hypothetical list of "crimes" and asks which should bar entry to the Hall of Fame if a player commits them. If I think Pete Rose's gambling is so bad (and I do), which of these others is also bad enough for me, Kenesaw Mountain Milbarge? Will's list is (1) regular domestic battery; (2) murder; (3) cocaine use; (4) use of performance-enhancing drugs; and (5) using a corked bat.
I suppose the line I draw is somewhat arbitrary, but here it is. I would call it "crimes against baseball." The only thing a fan can rely on is the knowledge that the game he or she watches is being played straight-up. Rose's gambling cast that into doubt. We can never know if Rose's bet affected his managing, and that potential made those games no better than a professional wrestling match.
This is also why the only one of Will's list that would be a bar for my vote would be the use of performance-enhancing drugs, even if the player is as good as...oh, to pick an example out of thin air for no reason...Barry Bonds. Performance-enhancing drugs, by definition, tilt what should be a level playing field. Again, we go to the ballpark with the assumption that the players got where they are through a combination of natural talent and hard work. Short-circuiting that route by taking steroids is little different (to me) than a high-schooler lying about his age to play (and dominate) in the Little Leagues. It's like the Mafia demanding a spot on the Fortune 500 list because, after all, it's one of the biggest businesses in the country.
So, why not the same for corked bats? My answer is twofold. First, it's highly doubtful that corking a bat adds any real edge to the batter. Second, a mere violation of the rules should be punishable by something less than banishment from the Hall. I even feel this way about something like knowingly letting the grounds crew pile the dirt a little too high on the pitcher's mound, which gives the pitcher a slight advantage. These things I would characterize more as "gamesmanship" than taking the fairness out of the game.
As for domestic battery and murder, these are awful, to be sure, but again, my criterion is an assault on the game, and those don't qualify. Let me be clear: I wouldn't make them an absolute bar to enshrinement, but they would certainly be entered into the overall election calculus, and might be enough to prevent winning my vote. I feel the same way about cocaine use, even though I know some would compare it to steroids. I'm not sure if cocaine has overall performance-enhancing attributes either. And my bleeding liberal heart wants to consider drug or alcohol addiction a disease warranting treatment, rather than (merely) a moral failing.
Finally, allow me to add another hypo to Will's list, one that is a closer call for me: stealing signs. This is a time-honored tradition in baseball. But one could see it as altering the fundamental fairness of the game if one team knows what the other is doing. Ultimately, however, I have to come down on the side of "gamesmanship" and rules violation possibly meriting a suspension, rather than an HOF bar. I started to write this long-winded explanation, but ultimately it got more long-winded than explanatory.
To use an analogy from another sport, I see stealing signs as akin to reading a poker opponent's "tells," and if somebody does that to you, well, it's as much your fault for having signs that are easy to pick up. I see steroid use like marking cards or peeking at the other guy's hand -- try getting in a game of poker with those on your resume. And I see gambling on baseball as the equivalent of the dealer stacking the deck -- it means you can't trust anything in the game.
Anyway, that's my response to Will's hypo. He asked for a line, and that's where I draw it. But reasonable minds can differ, so I welcome your comments telling me how little I know about baseball and cocaine and poker.
[An aside. I was talking to my dad for a few minutes today. He was a high school baseball manager (and football coach) for fifteen years, and has a million great stories. We got to talking about this, and he agrees with me. Steroids "taint the records," he says. As for Rose, if they let him in the Hall, "they should go in the clubhouse and tear down those signs, because there's no way they can say it's all right for him but we won't stand it from you." I mentioned the pitcher's mound thing, and commented that he had probably seen plenty of college (as a player) and high school fields with bad mounds. "Yeah, none of them were regulation. And they'd narrow the foul lines too, so the bunts would roll foul." Me: "You never got out your tape measure and measured the ninety feet, did you?" (thinking of the scene in "Hoosiers" where they measure the court) Dad: "Nah, but one year I had that team in the state semis and Brookville came to play us at Felt's Pond [really Felt's Park, his team's crappy stadium which apparently had a drainage problem we didn't get into] and they measured our field." Me: "Really? They literally measured to see if your field was regulation?" Dad: "Yeah, but we beat their ass."]
I suppose the line I draw is somewhat arbitrary, but here it is. I would call it "crimes against baseball." The only thing a fan can rely on is the knowledge that the game he or she watches is being played straight-up. Rose's gambling cast that into doubt. We can never know if Rose's bet affected his managing, and that potential made those games no better than a professional wrestling match.
This is also why the only one of Will's list that would be a bar for my vote would be the use of performance-enhancing drugs, even if the player is as good as...oh, to pick an example out of thin air for no reason...Barry Bonds. Performance-enhancing drugs, by definition, tilt what should be a level playing field. Again, we go to the ballpark with the assumption that the players got where they are through a combination of natural talent and hard work. Short-circuiting that route by taking steroids is little different (to me) than a high-schooler lying about his age to play (and dominate) in the Little Leagues. It's like the Mafia demanding a spot on the Fortune 500 list because, after all, it's one of the biggest businesses in the country.
So, why not the same for corked bats? My answer is twofold. First, it's highly doubtful that corking a bat adds any real edge to the batter. Second, a mere violation of the rules should be punishable by something less than banishment from the Hall. I even feel this way about something like knowingly letting the grounds crew pile the dirt a little too high on the pitcher's mound, which gives the pitcher a slight advantage. These things I would characterize more as "gamesmanship" than taking the fairness out of the game.
As for domestic battery and murder, these are awful, to be sure, but again, my criterion is an assault on the game, and those don't qualify. Let me be clear: I wouldn't make them an absolute bar to enshrinement, but they would certainly be entered into the overall election calculus, and might be enough to prevent winning my vote. I feel the same way about cocaine use, even though I know some would compare it to steroids. I'm not sure if cocaine has overall performance-enhancing attributes either. And my bleeding liberal heart wants to consider drug or alcohol addiction a disease warranting treatment, rather than (merely) a moral failing.
Finally, allow me to add another hypo to Will's list, one that is a closer call for me: stealing signs. This is a time-honored tradition in baseball. But one could see it as altering the fundamental fairness of the game if one team knows what the other is doing. Ultimately, however, I have to come down on the side of "gamesmanship" and rules violation possibly meriting a suspension, rather than an HOF bar. I started to write this long-winded explanation, but ultimately it got more long-winded than explanatory.
To use an analogy from another sport, I see stealing signs as akin to reading a poker opponent's "tells," and if somebody does that to you, well, it's as much your fault for having signs that are easy to pick up. I see steroid use like marking cards or peeking at the other guy's hand -- try getting in a game of poker with those on your resume. And I see gambling on baseball as the equivalent of the dealer stacking the deck -- it means you can't trust anything in the game.
Anyway, that's my response to Will's hypo. He asked for a line, and that's where I draw it. But reasonable minds can differ, so I welcome your comments telling me how little I know about baseball and cocaine and poker.
[An aside. I was talking to my dad for a few minutes today. He was a high school baseball manager (and football coach) for fifteen years, and has a million great stories. We got to talking about this, and he agrees with me. Steroids "taint the records," he says. As for Rose, if they let him in the Hall, "they should go in the clubhouse and tear down those signs, because there's no way they can say it's all right for him but we won't stand it from you." I mentioned the pitcher's mound thing, and commented that he had probably seen plenty of college (as a player) and high school fields with bad mounds. "Yeah, none of them were regulation. And they'd narrow the foul lines too, so the bunts would roll foul." Me: "You never got out your tape measure and measured the ninety feet, did you?" (thinking of the scene in "Hoosiers" where they measure the court) Dad: "Nah, but one year I had that team in the state semis and Brookville came to play us at Felt's Pond [really Felt's Park, his team's crappy stadium which apparently had a drainage problem we didn't get into] and they measured our field." Me: "Really? They literally measured to see if your field was regulation?" Dad: "Yeah, but we beat their ass."]
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
To any new readers joining us on the advice of Feddie we say "welcome." May I also add that if you are dismayed by the apparent lack of law and political commentary, you have just caught us on a slow week. Might I suggest a stroll through the archives, or for some representative posts check out this post on John Edwards, attorney at law or this post on Locke v. Davey, this post on drugs and terrorism, or this post on Chief Justice Rehnquist and civil liberties in war time. I hope you like the blog and we welcome your comments.
I turned on the local news this morning and learn that our community has already experienced its first murder of 2004. Not surprising, since a lot of people are murdered around here (no, I don't live in Detroit, but Mayberry this ain't). But the story was very troubling. Apparently, against their wishes, three young men (18 and younger) were asked to leave a party on New Year's Day and in retaliation sat in their car in the host's driveway honking the horn. This went on for some time and eventually a neighbor came outside and asked them to stop honking the horn. What happened? They shot and killed the neighbor. For asking these morons to stop honking a car horn in the middle of the night he was murdered.
I don't have any thoughtful comments, I just needed to share with you my dismay over this senseless type of behavior. How does anyone develop the world view that the proper response to another person asking him to stop acting like an idiot is to kill that other person?
The shooter is lucky that he did not take the wallet off of his victim, as he would then be facing the death penalty (in a state where there is no shame in sentencing an 18-year old to death). As it is, he only faces life without the possibility of parole, defended by a court-appointed attorney who will be paid only $1000 for the case. Not an auspicious start for '04.
I don't have any thoughtful comments, I just needed to share with you my dismay over this senseless type of behavior. How does anyone develop the world view that the proper response to another person asking him to stop acting like an idiot is to kill that other person?
The shooter is lucky that he did not take the wallet off of his victim, as he would then be facing the death penalty (in a state where there is no shame in sentencing an 18-year old to death). As it is, he only faces life without the possibility of parole, defended by a court-appointed attorney who will be paid only $1000 for the case. Not an auspicious start for '04.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
I saw a passing reference to a poll that got me thinking. According to the (unlinking) source, 94% of Americans believe in heaven, and 1% believe they are going to hell. I was finally able to track down a Fox News story noting that 92% believe in God and 85% in heaven, but not mentioning the number who believe they are headed elsewhere (although it says 74% believe hell exists). And I found this Harris poll from 1998 with the following findings:
I'm not sure what to make of this. I was mentally composing this post during the walk home from work, and kept going down theological blind alleys and tangents. But really, who would answer the poll question, "Do you think you're going to hell?" with a "Yes"? (And for present purposes, let's discount the possibility of people lying to the pollsters, although I have a feeling that represents a goodly portion of this number.)
I'm fully prepared to face the fact that if certain belief systems are right, well, let's just say I'm not going to be in that number when the saints go marching in. That's the decision all believers have to make when they cast their lot with a certain sect (unless you're Ned Flanders, who prays five times a day and keeps kosher just in case). And, likewise, people who make the informed decision not to believe do so with the knowledge of the consequences of their possible incorrectness.
But here's what I don't get. I can see someone saying "I don't believe at all, and therefore I don't think I'm going to hell." But how does someone say, "I believe in heaven and hell, and I have some idea of what will get me to either place, and I choose the path less traveled by." I guess some of this is people giving God the finger, so to speak -- people who believe in God and his judgment but for whatever reason choose open defiance, to hell with the consequences, so to speak. And there are probably some good people who think they aren't good enough or something -- an "I'm not worthy" thing.
I guess what I'm really getting at is, Why would someone who thinks he or she is going to hell believe in heaven and hell in the first place? What's the point? If you're upset by the thought of going to hell, do whatever your religion requires to change the destination on your one-way ticket. But if you're not upset about it, why not? Everything I've ever heard about hell makes it sound pretty bad.
I'm sorry if this is a little rambling and disjointed. I'm just confused by that one or two percent. If I am able to make any more sense of this, I may update this post later.
Two other thoughts: First, I'm not necessarily accepting the fact that so few people actually do go to hell, if it exists. Some of the people in that vast majority might be wrong about their fates. And second, it was hard to write this without thinking of the very good Seinfeld episode wherein Puddy thinks Elaine is going to hell but doesn't care. Hmm. In that episode, Elaine seems to be okay with it -- even to embrace it -- once she learns Puddy is going there too. So maybe people like her are in the 2% hell's-a-poppin' set.
UPDATE, Wed. afternoon: In the comments to this post, our old friend Seb pointed out this religion selector test. I would also like to suggest this test from the terrific Beliefnet site, a wonderful resource for religious news and information. I know it's called the "Belief-O-Matic," but it's still pretty interesting. Plus, once they post your results, there are lots of links for information on the various religions. I took it some time ago, and I think the top result was Reform Judaism. I think that was because I was more concerned about life here than life after death, and my understanding is that Jews don't believe in hell the way Christians do. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out, and I think Beliefnet is worth the plug.
Fully 84% of all adults say that they believe in the survival of the soul after death and, of these, three-quarters (76%) expect to go to heaven. This represents 64% of the total population. Only 2% of those who believe in life after death expect to go to hell, while 4% think they will go to purgatory.
I'm not sure what to make of this. I was mentally composing this post during the walk home from work, and kept going down theological blind alleys and tangents. But really, who would answer the poll question, "Do you think you're going to hell?" with a "Yes"? (And for present purposes, let's discount the possibility of people lying to the pollsters, although I have a feeling that represents a goodly portion of this number.)
I'm fully prepared to face the fact that if certain belief systems are right, well, let's just say I'm not going to be in that number when the saints go marching in. That's the decision all believers have to make when they cast their lot with a certain sect (unless you're Ned Flanders, who prays five times a day and keeps kosher just in case). And, likewise, people who make the informed decision not to believe do so with the knowledge of the consequences of their possible incorrectness.
But here's what I don't get. I can see someone saying "I don't believe at all, and therefore I don't think I'm going to hell." But how does someone say, "I believe in heaven and hell, and I have some idea of what will get me to either place, and I choose the path less traveled by." I guess some of this is people giving God the finger, so to speak -- people who believe in God and his judgment but for whatever reason choose open defiance, to hell with the consequences, so to speak. And there are probably some good people who think they aren't good enough or something -- an "I'm not worthy" thing.
I guess what I'm really getting at is, Why would someone who thinks he or she is going to hell believe in heaven and hell in the first place? What's the point? If you're upset by the thought of going to hell, do whatever your religion requires to change the destination on your one-way ticket. But if you're not upset about it, why not? Everything I've ever heard about hell makes it sound pretty bad.
I'm sorry if this is a little rambling and disjointed. I'm just confused by that one or two percent. If I am able to make any more sense of this, I may update this post later.
Two other thoughts: First, I'm not necessarily accepting the fact that so few people actually do go to hell, if it exists. Some of the people in that vast majority might be wrong about their fates. And second, it was hard to write this without thinking of the very good Seinfeld episode wherein Puddy thinks Elaine is going to hell but doesn't care. Hmm. In that episode, Elaine seems to be okay with it -- even to embrace it -- once she learns Puddy is going there too. So maybe people like her are in the 2% hell's-a-poppin' set.
UPDATE, Wed. afternoon: In the comments to this post, our old friend Seb pointed out this religion selector test. I would also like to suggest this test from the terrific Beliefnet site, a wonderful resource for religious news and information. I know it's called the "Belief-O-Matic," but it's still pretty interesting. Plus, once they post your results, there are lots of links for information on the various religions. I took it some time ago, and I think the top result was Reform Judaism. I think that was because I was more concerned about life here than life after death, and my understanding is that Jews don't believe in hell the way Christians do. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out, and I think Beliefnet is worth the plug.
Even though he didn't mention it, and perhaps may not have even known it, Fitz's last two posts, reviewing the new Lord of the Rings movie here and the new Lyle Lovett album here, have launched a new feature for the blog, the BTQ Review. We're hoping that this will be a weekly feature in which one of us will review a book or a movie or an album or whatever else we're spending time on that week. So, the pressure is on me to ingest something this week and synthesize it for you soon. Fortunately, I have just started a really interesting new book, so I hope that will be my first contribution to the review corner.
As for what else the new year has brought me, the answer is a new office. Our office is expanding in size but not presonnel. The physical expansion was approved back when the budget was in a surplus and the court foresaw hiring several more bodies. Now, with the budget cutbacks, we're not even replacing some people as they leave, and the site expansion is going to produce several empty offices. We are on the twenty-second floor of an office building. We used to have about three-fourths of the floor, and the rest was empty. We're expanding into that space and now have the whole floor.
In the interest of preserving my anonymity, I won't tell you what body of water my window overlooks, but it's a hell of a view. The sun is out today, and I can see for miles. There are only six offices with this view, and the other five belong to the boss and four attorneys who have been here for over a decade. So how did I, who has been here for about 16 moths, get one? Well, my office was clearly an afterthought. It's a tiny space between two huge offices. It has an odd shape that made furniture arrangement a headache. When it came to be my turn to choose a new office, I found out that virtually everyone ahead of me in seniority had considered this office but passed. So yesterday everyone came by the see how I liked it and wonder at how I was going to arrange things. I was greatly aided by some of my co-workers with an eye for design, and I think I have achieved the best use of the available space. And they're all jealous of my view...my Precious.
Anyway, while Fitz was posting about movies and music (and working, too, I'm sure), I was unpacking boxes and shoving my desk across the floor. (Sorry, folks on the twenty-first floor!) And if I'm sitting at the computer desk and lean back at the wrong angle, I bump into the other desk. But it's worth it. My view kicks ass. And, thanks to the natural light, I can turn off the flourescents and save myself from that eerie hum they produce -- not to mention whatever health and happiness those monsters sucked out of me. Oh, and I now have an air-conditioning unit. In my old interior office, we were at the mercy of whatever temperature the buidling folks set. Now, I can crank the air like those Sierra Mist commercials. And, now that everyone's been shuffled around, my office is very close to those of the two most attractive women in the office, so I see them walk by all the time. If it weren't for all this work that piled up over the holidays, my working life would be just about perfect.
As for what else the new year has brought me, the answer is a new office. Our office is expanding in size but not presonnel. The physical expansion was approved back when the budget was in a surplus and the court foresaw hiring several more bodies. Now, with the budget cutbacks, we're not even replacing some people as they leave, and the site expansion is going to produce several empty offices. We are on the twenty-second floor of an office building. We used to have about three-fourths of the floor, and the rest was empty. We're expanding into that space and now have the whole floor.
In the interest of preserving my anonymity, I won't tell you what body of water my window overlooks, but it's a hell of a view. The sun is out today, and I can see for miles. There are only six offices with this view, and the other five belong to the boss and four attorneys who have been here for over a decade. So how did I, who has been here for about 16 moths, get one? Well, my office was clearly an afterthought. It's a tiny space between two huge offices. It has an odd shape that made furniture arrangement a headache. When it came to be my turn to choose a new office, I found out that virtually everyone ahead of me in seniority had considered this office but passed. So yesterday everyone came by the see how I liked it and wonder at how I was going to arrange things. I was greatly aided by some of my co-workers with an eye for design, and I think I have achieved the best use of the available space. And they're all jealous of my view...my Precious.
Anyway, while Fitz was posting about movies and music (and working, too, I'm sure), I was unpacking boxes and shoving my desk across the floor. (Sorry, folks on the twenty-first floor!) And if I'm sitting at the computer desk and lean back at the wrong angle, I bump into the other desk. But it's worth it. My view kicks ass. And, thanks to the natural light, I can turn off the flourescents and save myself from that eerie hum they produce -- not to mention whatever health and happiness those monsters sucked out of me. Oh, and I now have an air-conditioning unit. In my old interior office, we were at the mercy of whatever temperature the buidling folks set. Now, I can crank the air like those Sierra Mist commercials. And, now that everyone's been shuffled around, my office is very close to those of the two most attractive women in the office, so I see them walk by all the time. If it weren't for all this work that piled up over the holidays, my working life would be just about perfect.
Monday, January 05, 2004
I am listening to the latest Lyle Lovett CD My Baby Don't Tolerate and I am loving it. I was prompted to buy the album after attending a recent LL concert at the Carpenter Center in Richmond, Virginia. (Aside: I have not seen that many urban cowboys - complete with oil-skin fedoras, pony-tails, and tapered-leg Levis - in one place in a long time. Lord, help them, they looked as out of place as salad forks at a chili cook-off). The CD is a solid collection of blues and country songs with a couple of gospel tunes tacked on at the end. The gospel songs are okay but they don't do a whole lot for me. Likewise with the first track Cute as a Bug. The country songs, however, including The Truck Song, San Antonio Girl and Nothing But a Good Ride are great driving songs. Good Ride is maybe one of the ten best rodeo songs I have heard. The jazz / blues-inspired songs You Were Always There, Election Day, and the title song are quite good. And if you have ever driven through the speed traps in Tomball, Texas you will certainly appreciate Big Dog ("thirty's fine, but thirty-one is a crime..."). This CD is very much in the style of Road to Ensenada and, as with all his albums, Lyle combines an eclectic mix of musical styles with sharp lyrics to create an entertaining musical blend. He is a heck of a song-writer, and, dang it, he was once Mr. Julia Roberts (so I will forgive him for the gospel songs).
Rating:
5 Pepsi cans out of a possible 6-pack.
EDIT: Why does BTQ Review use a Pepsi can rating system instead of stars or thumbs? It comes from the line in Spies Like Us, "Won't you gentlemen have a Pepsi?" Also note that Pepsi is an acceptable rating tool, but as a beverage it is despised among the members of BTQ.
Rating:
5 Pepsi cans out of a possible 6-pack.
EDIT: Why does BTQ Review use a Pepsi can rating system instead of stars or thumbs? It comes from the line in Spies Like Us, "Won't you gentlemen have a Pepsi?" Also note that Pepsi is an acceptable rating tool, but as a beverage it is despised among the members of BTQ.
Okay, I have seen The Return of the King and I have to say that it is amazing. Truly. The charge of the Rohirrim into the flank of the Orc army was spectacular (for another great cavalry charge, rent The Lighthorsemen). The lighting of the signal fires was an exceptional piece of cinematography. The Witch-King was appropriately fearsome. It is a grand film and compels me to conclude that the LOTR trilogy surpasses Star Wars as the better movie trilogy. It is more compelling (due to a vastly superior story from Tolkien) and more appealing visually. The battle between good and evil in Star Wars feels like a political struggle rather than a pure struggle between good and evil. I still love pre-Jar-Jar Star Wars but LOTR has moved into the top spot on my list.
In case you care, I think my favorite scene is that in which Faramir and the remnants of his army are racing back to Minas Tirith pursued by the Nazgul. Gandalf races from the city to meet them and protect them from the Nazgul and I just love the feel of the scene and the way the camera moves from closeups to wideshots and how the CG effects are integrated seamlessly with real actors and sets. Just amazing. My favorite line from the movie is spoken by King Theoden on the eve of battle when one of his riders despairs that they cannot prevail against Sauron's army. "No, we cannot defeat them," he says, "but we will ride out to meet them nonetheless." That is stirring stuff and, in my view, more gut-wrenching than his speech exhorting the Rohirrim before they ride into battle. (my apologies if the quote is a little off)
The only bone I have to pick is that the pacing for the first hour or so was very rushed and it made me anxious (in a disconcerting way, not in an eager-for-battle-scenes way) while the last hour dragged too slowly. I did not have a problem with the length (what did you expect?) or the several endings because there are several story lines that had to end separate from one another. It did irk many of the idiots with whom I shared the movie theater, though. Of course, one of these very "cool" guys had to yell "It's not over yet!" His date must have been so proud.
While I am on the subject of movie audiences, let me also take a moment to relay a personal message to all of those movie watchers who: (1) explain or critique the movie during the movie, (2) applaud during the movie, or (3) yell "It's not over yet!" YOU NEED TO SHUT THE HELL UP. I do not pay $15.00 to hear some Tom Clancy wannabe explain to his wife that the Petersburg earthworks in Cold Mountain were taller in the movie than in real life. Neither do I want to hear you explain to your friend who did not see The Two Towers that Aragorn is the Dunedan, the heir of Isildur, and the future king. Furthermore, I don't like it when your applause drown out the dialog (have you ever noticed that some of the best one-liners follow the dramatic, applause inducing scenes? Probably not, since you are too busy clapping - save it for your kid's school play buddy.) And I don't like your sitcom reject one-liners. If you want to force people in a movie theater to listen to you, then go to Hollywood, join the SAG, and start auditioning for the "Joey" Friends spin-off. But the AMC 24 in Hampton is not a casting couch.< /rant>
In case you care, I think my favorite scene is that in which Faramir and the remnants of his army are racing back to Minas Tirith pursued by the Nazgul. Gandalf races from the city to meet them and protect them from the Nazgul and I just love the feel of the scene and the way the camera moves from closeups to wideshots and how the CG effects are integrated seamlessly with real actors and sets. Just amazing. My favorite line from the movie is spoken by King Theoden on the eve of battle when one of his riders despairs that they cannot prevail against Sauron's army. "No, we cannot defeat them," he says, "but we will ride out to meet them nonetheless." That is stirring stuff and, in my view, more gut-wrenching than his speech exhorting the Rohirrim before they ride into battle. (my apologies if the quote is a little off)
The only bone I have to pick is that the pacing for the first hour or so was very rushed and it made me anxious (in a disconcerting way, not in an eager-for-battle-scenes way) while the last hour dragged too slowly. I did not have a problem with the length (what did you expect?) or the several endings because there are several story lines that had to end separate from one another. It did irk many of the idiots with whom I shared the movie theater, though. Of course, one of these very "cool" guys had to yell "It's not over yet!" His date must have been so proud.
While I am on the subject of movie audiences, let me also take a moment to relay a personal message to all of those movie watchers who: (1) explain or critique the movie during the movie, (2) applaud during the movie, or (3) yell "It's not over yet!" YOU NEED TO SHUT THE HELL UP. I do not pay $15.00 to hear some Tom Clancy wannabe explain to his wife that the Petersburg earthworks in Cold Mountain were taller in the movie than in real life. Neither do I want to hear you explain to your friend who did not see The Two Towers that Aragorn is the Dunedan, the heir of Isildur, and the future king. Furthermore, I don't like it when your applause drown out the dialog (have you ever noticed that some of the best one-liners follow the dramatic, applause inducing scenes? Probably not, since you are too busy clapping - save it for your kid's school play buddy.) And I don't like your sitcom reject one-liners. If you want to force people in a movie theater to listen to you, then go to Hollywood, join the SAG, and start auditioning for the "Joey" Friends spin-off. But the AMC 24 in Hampton is not a casting couch.< /rant>
Inspired by Milbarge's post about movies he liked better than the books upon which they were based, I will offer some candidates for your consideration (in no particular order). Note that many of these movies I like only slightly more than the book. They are on the bubble (like "Jaws" for Mr. P).
1. The Searchers (based on the novel by Alan LeMay). John Wayne - at his best - in an against-type role. The first video I ever watched in a VCR and one of my all-time favorite westerns. The book is a short, easy read, and oh-so-good, too.
2. Band of Brothers (based on the book by Stephen Ambrose). Does non-fiction count? If so, then this one has to be on the list. A magnificent set of stories about leadership, courage, and just how great Americans can be in the face of evil. The movies are superior in my mind because I can keep the characters straight and the hardships the men suffer are more vivid on screen than on the page.
3. The Last Picture Show (based on the book by Larry McMurtry). A spot-on portrayal of life in small-town west Texas.
4. Lonesome Dove (also based on the book by Larry McMurtry). Another great western, made greater still by the performances of Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones.
5. Apocalypse Now (loosely based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"). Is this close enough to count? The book is tough to read and high school English sucked most of the life out of it. The movie is much easier for me to deal with.
6. A River Runs Through It (based on the short story by Norman Maclean). If you have brothers then this book is a must-read. The movie makes me cry every time I watch it. You do not have to be a fly fisherman to appreciate this story.
7. The Last of the Mohicans (book by James Fenimore Cooper). The Daniel Day Lewis version. Yes, it is a very different story, but it is great nonetheless. The Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina are a beautiful setting for this great period piece. Awesome battles and a great chase through the forest. The pacing, the scenery, the music all give the edge to the movie over the book.
8. The Scarlet Letter (based on the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne) I am not kidding. A bathing Demi Moore makes this one easy to call. I suffered through the book and suffered ever so slightly less through the movie.
9. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (based on Washington Irving's famous work, not a book but I will still count it). Two candidates here: I really, really like the Disney cartoon version of this tale and I also like Tim Burton's adaptation with Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci.
10. Treasure Island (based on the book by Robert Louis Stevenson). One of my all-time favorite books and the production featuring Christian Bale and Charlton Heston (in the greatest performance of his life, in my opinion) does justice to the story. It is worthy of your home collection. A lot of people like the Orson Welles version, but I never really cared for it.
11. Hi-Fidelity (based on Nick Hornby's book). Jack Black had me at "hello." I am a big Cusack fan, too.
Well, I have some more, but I also have workers' comp benefits to award, so I need to get back to the grind. I hope these choices generate some more discussion.
1. The Searchers (based on the novel by Alan LeMay). John Wayne - at his best - in an against-type role. The first video I ever watched in a VCR and one of my all-time favorite westerns. The book is a short, easy read, and oh-so-good, too.
2. Band of Brothers (based on the book by Stephen Ambrose). Does non-fiction count? If so, then this one has to be on the list. A magnificent set of stories about leadership, courage, and just how great Americans can be in the face of evil. The movies are superior in my mind because I can keep the characters straight and the hardships the men suffer are more vivid on screen than on the page.
3. The Last Picture Show (based on the book by Larry McMurtry). A spot-on portrayal of life in small-town west Texas.
4. Lonesome Dove (also based on the book by Larry McMurtry). Another great western, made greater still by the performances of Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones.
5. Apocalypse Now (loosely based on Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"). Is this close enough to count? The book is tough to read and high school English sucked most of the life out of it. The movie is much easier for me to deal with.
6. A River Runs Through It (based on the short story by Norman Maclean). If you have brothers then this book is a must-read. The movie makes me cry every time I watch it. You do not have to be a fly fisherman to appreciate this story.
7. The Last of the Mohicans (book by James Fenimore Cooper). The Daniel Day Lewis version. Yes, it is a very different story, but it is great nonetheless. The Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina are a beautiful setting for this great period piece. Awesome battles and a great chase through the forest. The pacing, the scenery, the music all give the edge to the movie over the book.
8. The Scarlet Letter (based on the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne) I am not kidding. A bathing Demi Moore makes this one easy to call. I suffered through the book and suffered ever so slightly less through the movie.
9. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (based on Washington Irving's famous work, not a book but I will still count it). Two candidates here: I really, really like the Disney cartoon version of this tale and I also like Tim Burton's adaptation with Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci.
10. Treasure Island (based on the book by Robert Louis Stevenson). One of my all-time favorite books and the production featuring Christian Bale and Charlton Heston (in the greatest performance of his life, in my opinion) does justice to the story. It is worthy of your home collection. A lot of people like the Orson Welles version, but I never really cared for it.
11. Hi-Fidelity (based on Nick Hornby's book). Jack Black had me at "hello." I am a big Cusack fan, too.
Well, I have some more, but I also have workers' comp benefits to award, so I need to get back to the grind. I hope these choices generate some more discussion.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
The word from ESPN is that Pete Rose admits betting on baseball, finally, in his new book due out Thursday, coinciding with Rose's interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC. (I guess Jim Gray wasn't available.) This move is generally seen as Rose's effort to be removed from baseball's ineligible list and made eligible to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame is probably sport's ultimate agree-to-disagree issue. None of you will ever be able to convince me that Bud Selig and Major League Baseball should reinstate Rose and make him eligible to be hired as a manager or be elected to the Hall of Fame. And I doubt I would ever be able to convice those of you who feel that a Hall of Fame isn't worth its name without "the Hit King" that Pete Rose was a cancer on the game of baseball, and I once taped a picture of Bart Giamatti to my wall for excising it.
Briefly, my position is this: Rose knew the rule against gambling and broke it. He agreed to be placed on the lifetime ineligible list, although he has never expressed an iota of remorse and instead insists his understanding was that he was to receive only a slap on the wrist and be reinstated after a year. That's like someone getting a life sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines saying he assumed the President would pardon him after a short time in prison. The rule was posted in every clubhouse in baseball: gamble and you're suspended for a year; bet on baseball and you're banned for life. Rose stood in those clubhouses and used the phone to call his bookies and bet on his team, the Reds.
Ah, but he only bet for the Reds, you say. But consider this: every time Rose didn't place a bet, that was a signal to the bookies that he didn't think the Reds could win. I say that in the larger sense the result is the same as if he had bet against the Reds.
I don't oppose Rose's reinstatement because he's a jerk, although he is. And if this were football, where the Hall of Fame doesn't have a "morals clause" (see: Lawrence Taylor, et al.), it might be a different story. But Rose committed conduct detrimental to the game he purports to love and even stand for, knew what the penalty was, and accepted it. He doesn't deserve to be reinstated. And even though I'm not the biggest fan nowadays anyway (steroids and labor trouble have largely ruined it for me), my promise is that if Selig and his crew reinstate Rose, I am swearing off Major League Baseball forever. They won't miss me, I know, but I can't in good conscience support a system that allows someone like Rose back in the fold.
Whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame is probably sport's ultimate agree-to-disagree issue. None of you will ever be able to convince me that Bud Selig and Major League Baseball should reinstate Rose and make him eligible to be hired as a manager or be elected to the Hall of Fame. And I doubt I would ever be able to convice those of you who feel that a Hall of Fame isn't worth its name without "the Hit King" that Pete Rose was a cancer on the game of baseball, and I once taped a picture of Bart Giamatti to my wall for excising it.
Briefly, my position is this: Rose knew the rule against gambling and broke it. He agreed to be placed on the lifetime ineligible list, although he has never expressed an iota of remorse and instead insists his understanding was that he was to receive only a slap on the wrist and be reinstated after a year. That's like someone getting a life sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines saying he assumed the President would pardon him after a short time in prison. The rule was posted in every clubhouse in baseball: gamble and you're suspended for a year; bet on baseball and you're banned for life. Rose stood in those clubhouses and used the phone to call his bookies and bet on his team, the Reds.
Ah, but he only bet for the Reds, you say. But consider this: every time Rose didn't place a bet, that was a signal to the bookies that he didn't think the Reds could win. I say that in the larger sense the result is the same as if he had bet against the Reds.
I don't oppose Rose's reinstatement because he's a jerk, although he is. And if this were football, where the Hall of Fame doesn't have a "morals clause" (see: Lawrence Taylor, et al.), it might be a different story. But Rose committed conduct detrimental to the game he purports to love and even stand for, knew what the penalty was, and accepted it. He doesn't deserve to be reinstated. And even though I'm not the biggest fan nowadays anyway (steroids and labor trouble have largely ruined it for me), my promise is that if Selig and his crew reinstate Rose, I am swearing off Major League Baseball forever. They won't miss me, I know, but I can't in good conscience support a system that allows someone like Rose back in the fold.