Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

Forgive me if this post isn’t perfectly well-thought out, or coherently expressed. I can only proof read and edit it so many times.

Against my better judgment, I have once again read a David Brooks piece. Here’s a taste:

Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world. [Bobo]

I sort of agree with what Brooks says here about these models. Back when I posted about chaos, and considered some of the impressions a particular book left on me, with respect to the relationship between truth and opinion, I resolved myself to the idea that there are natural truths (the way the world is) and there is opinion (the way we communicate about how we perceive the world to be.) Brooks’ models falling into the second category.

I disagree that these models — informed by genes, culture, education, parents and events — amount to “emotional intuition.” People working with underdeveloped models may rely on intuition to fill in the blanks, but a knowledgeable, well educated person standing on the giant’s shoulders, will have a reasonably well formed model. A model that to the best of accumulated human knowledge, reflects the way the world truly is, that provides a reasonably good approximation of the underlying natural truth.

Indiana Jones, aside from the hokey religious undertones, provides a handy visual aid in the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

The bridge represents truth. The sand: opinion, (or ‘model.’) While the sand does not reveal the full extent of the reality of the bridge, later in the movie, it reveals to the pursuing antagonists that there is, in fact, a bridge there.

Brooks seems to lose the thread when he delves into the practical application of these models in jurisprudence:

One judge, with one set of internal models, may look at a case and perceive that the humiliation suffered by a 13-year-old girl during a strip search in a school or airport is the most consequential fact of the case. Another judge, with another set of internal models, may perceive that the security of the school or airport is the most consequential fact. People elevate and savor facts that conform to their pre-existing sensitivities. [Bobo Ibid.]

(As an aside: I’m interested as to why Bobo felt it necessary to add the “or airport” to his example.)

Now I’m thinking that when Brooks speaks about “models,” he’s actually talking about what I would call “scripts.” Though scripts aren’t “models of how the world works,” but rather routines we employ to process information, and sensory input, to reconcile this information with the model and react to it, or adapt to new situations. Scripts, are how (and what!) we learn. Scripts, are what we use to investigate, analyze, communicate and make decisions. Scripts, are where emotions and intuition will often come into play.

All that said, Brooks’ point is well taken. Different people may very well draw from different models and different scripts depending on their beliefs, culture, upbringing etc.

This is all interesting and edifying to sort through, but some point we need to shift gears away from the concept of natural truth to something more philosophical. Philosophical truth?

I think Brooks’ point is this: more important than the scripts one uses to come to a decision, is the model in which one vests their beliefs. In this case, Brooks prefers a model based upon the law, tradition, the status quo:

[D]oes she have a love for the institutions of the law themselves? For some lawyers, the law is not only a bunch of statutes but a code of chivalry. The good judges seem to derive a profound emotional satisfaction from the faithful execution of time-tested precedents and traditions. [Bobo ibid.]

My question is, as posted yesterday: Is there truth in it?

I maintain that when it comes to the rule of law, we have departed — as a rocket from the Earth — from truth and opinion, into a realm of simulacra of truths and problematic scripts.

PS: I’m interested what Winston Smith would say about this (he’s been posting about this stuff lately) though I don’t get the impression he takes me very seriously as I may, in his view, be given over to kooky far-left quasi-philosophical nonsense. Perhaps it’s just an incompatibility in our base models.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when Dear Barry said, “The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out…,” and, “In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion…”

Looks as though one of those statements probably had some truth in it:

[US Army] Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them…” [Telegraph (Emphasis added.)]

I’m sure the detainees had signs around their necks that said ‘lay on top of me and keep me physically active or I’ll die.’

*See The Culture Ghost for “clownshit.”

Fuck deep knowledge of the law. Fuck respect for precedent. Fuck empathy. Here’s a guy with different life experiences, who has made different life choices than the average establishment judicial nominee. This guy might just be punk rock enough to shake up the Supreme Court and make it interesting.

I nominate Mark Borchardt, subject of the great documentary, American Movie to the Supreme Court.

Here is Borchardt lashing out against the soulless emptiness of one of our finest American traditions: Toil:

I’d be interested to see how he would answer questions about these comments in confirmation hearings

[There's some additional thoughts on the law and the court over at my place with a couple of questions in the post and comments for any constitutional law scholars out there.]

The Republican party has admitted a lack of political will to make a big stink over the Sotomayor nomination– meaning they have ruled out the possibility of mounting a filibuster that would fail –despite the infinite degree of importance they place on the unvarnished interpretation of The Letter Of The Rule Of The Law in judges they themselves did not nominate. Since no one in their right mind wants to delve any further into judicial confirmation politics than what I just have, let us consider for a moment Justice, and question the infatuation with “the letter of the law.” By way of copping-out, this inquiry can best be carried out by block-quoting two giants of intellect who state the case far more eloquently than I could.

Regarding the law:

I stress the man-made aspect of law, because it is so often neglected or emphasized too little. As I said in the earlier piece, laws are devised by particular people, in particular circumstances, with particular friends and interests. … And those people who devise a system of law are members of the ruling class; that is why they are devising the laws, and not others. Thus, law is the specific means by which the ruling class utilizes the power of the State and directs that power to the ends they desire. [Arthur Silber]

If the responsibility of the judiciary is to ensure ‘equal protection under the law,’ even as the legislature is bound by no such requirement to provide equal protection within the law — then whither justice?

Besides, regarding the unvarnished interpretation of the letter of the law:

as you listen to all these folks – conservatives, i suppose – talk about how we need a supreme court justice who does not decide cases based on her own emotions or opinions, but on the letter of the law and the text of the constitution, keep in mind that in virtually every case, you know before the arguments which way which justices will vote. keep in mind that the conservatives vote as a block. keep in mind that the social agendas of the presidents who appointed them are, by and large, reflected in virtually every decision. [Crispin Sartwell]

LOL. What were we talking about?

UPDATE: I’ve published a companion post to this one over at Agitprop.

Love the propaganda: Here’s something to keep in the back of your mind anytime the president “addresses the nation,” or decides to “speak directly to the people,” because Dustin Hoffman as Lenny Bruce’s valuable advice to wayward monogamists works for American presidents too:

So good on you, president Obama! I see what you did there. When you want people to maintain a belief in your respect for the rule of law, all you need to do is pay it some lip service, because they want to believe you.

If I’ve done my job here you will allow Dustin Hoffman’s words, speaking as Lenny Bruce, to color everything you hear Dear Barry say.

We’ve successfully recovered almost everything that seemed lost. Just some more work to do on the “subscriptions” section of the sidebar and The Stump will be back up to full strength.

While all two of you regular readers are anxiously waiting to see when I might successfully recover practically everything I’ve written over the last 4.5 years, or to see when I might post “Running Blog” entries for my last two agonizing workouts, here’s a video.

It’s The Eighties’ Oingo Boingo’s Dead Man’s Party set to scenes from a couple of those amazing Tim Burton stop motion movies:

isn’t this fantastic? all squeaky clean. no content whatsoever. oh, i have export files, the data is there. however i can’t seem to restore them at this time. because the file is too big… I GUESS. wordpress doesn’t tell me what the problem is, it just doesn’t do it. fucking fantastic.

the site looks different, right? not sure what i’ve done, but i ruined the usual stump lane theme this morning. will have to bear with this one temporarily.

Not pictured: approximately 100 deaths by interrogation.

Dennis Perrin on the president’s White House Correspondents Dinner bit:

The former vice president was busy, President Barack Obama joked, working on his memoir “tentatively titled, How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People, or Setting The Table For The Next President.”

Short 8:20 min run.

I don’t remember anything about this run. There is only the 8′ 20″ 36 on my stop watch as proof. I vaguely remember thinking at the end of the run that I could go further, but there were other things needed doing. I don’t remember what they were though. Drifting through life like a character in a Pink Floyd song.

I know I should just throw some Metallica in the CD player and drive along in oblivion, but instead I listened to NPR this morning. Today we learned that the economic crisis happened because consumers panicked when the market crashed, and people decided to cut back on their spending. This slowed down the velocity of money. (The velocity of money is apparently how fast we wageheads spend it once we get our paychecks.) We also learned that Uncle Sam printing money releasing money into the system helps.

Helps how? Let’s say the economic system was in trouble because of debt. Let’s say that a large number of people were underwater on their mortgages and maxed out on their credit cards. Let’s say the financiers were calling this debt, and the anticipation of their continued ability to collect on it, an asset. Let’s say the value the financiers put on this debt-asset was somewhat greater than people’s actual ability to repay it. Furthermore, let’s say the value of the assets that the debt was incurred to purchase went down rather than up (in the case of the mortgages,) or was worthless to begin with (in the case of credit cards.) Just for grins, let’s also say the financiers were charging usurious interest on the debt, putting even more strain on borrowers’ ability to ever pay up in full.

What would a state beholden to, and interested in serving its citizens, with eleventy-trillion dollars to burn, do to help in this situation?

Empower people to reduce the amount of unrealizable debt they owe? Curb the financiers’ ability to charge excessive interest? Or would it curb borrowers’ ability to reconfigure their debt through bankruptcy protection, and empower the financiers’ with massive injections of capital to, what, cook the books? Pad their bottom line? Skim a few billion off the till in executive bonuses?

Which course would a state beholden to, and interested in serving moneyed interests take?

No need to concern our little selves with questions like these, because whatever it is they are doing, whoever it is they are serving… it’s working! According to the lede for that NPR report:

A consensus is emerging that the global economy is close to bottoming out and that the beginning of a recovery should be evident later this year. [NPR]

Look for more, even less coherent bonus material under the second cut…

(more…)

The Hero, The Leader, The God

The Maine bill authorizes marriage between any two people…

Despite my status as really uncommitted anarchist, I reckon this is a good thing. I’m a big fan of the radical gay agenda. I’m a big fan of anything, really, that gets reactionary types riled up about “social propriety” and ‘licentious nihilists’:

…gay nihilists browbeat traditionalists into submission: Radical leftists know that their agenda violates the deepest sense of social propriety, and so they must portray traditionalists as bigots and religious “extremists” to make the sale for their own licentiousness. [D.D.]

With a goal as lofty as radical social revolution, the destruction of the institution of marriage would seem like a worthy first step. Though I’m not sure extending that institution’s reach is exactly the best way to go about it, I’ll trust the nihilist’s judgment on this one.

In the meantime, if gay folks can get themselves added to their same-sex spouses’ health insurance at work, or have input in their health decisions at the hospital without getting hassled by the in-laws, or keep their communal property when their spouse dies, then I reckon it’s a good thing.

Undoubtedly the collection of the 55K signatures needed to get a “people’s veto” initiative on the ballot come November is already under way. Though I doubt Maine voters would overturn the law, a truly radical gay nihilist movement would borrow a page from the Democrat playbook and challenge the signatures. Anything less would be anticlimactic.

[Portland Press Herald: Baldacci signs same-sex marriage into law]