Lest you think this blog will be a constant bombardment of heavy questions with no substantive answers, here's just a smattering of random links, etc. (Wow, how pompous did that last sentence sound?)
First, my buddy Kyle recently posted a link related to the debate over the merits of a universal health care system. The article itself is very readable and identifies a unique concern that some opponents of nationalization may echo. I really enjoyed this writing, which isn't surprising considering Kyle and I are similar in many ways...except he goes to a better school, has a girlfriend, owns a car, and has locks of spun gold.
Second, my high school classmate, good friend, and resident atheist Ryan Krause authored an interesting take on The Dark Knight, a movie about some superhero and his archnemesis that one or two of y'all may have heard a bit about. I'm not linking this because he's my friend; it's a great article that's well worth reading.
Word of the Day: Exoculate. You can probably derive the meaning from its roots (e.g. "exonerate" is "to remove the onus", or, to free from blame). Still not sure? Let's just say that it'd be a handy word to have at your disposal when watching Kill Bill Volume 2.
Finally, a deep thought: How cool would it be if Greg House were on Lost instead of Jack? Inter-network crossover for sweeps season, perhaps?
Friday, January 9, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Should Jesse White Sign?
Those who have been following the perpetual scandal that is Illinois politics have heard Hot Rod Blagojevich has recently appointed Roland Burris to former Senator Obama's vacated seat. The U.S. Senate has so far refused to seat Mr. Burris, likely because they have no desire to associate themselves with the corruption emanating from Springfield. Hey, no problem...who could blame 'em? It's unclear whether the Senate has the right to refuse to seat a legitimate appointment made by a legitimate governor, but this topic has been kicked around many times that it's no longer groundbreaking. (If you're interested, though, I like Steve Chapman's take.)
What interests me is the part of this story that relates to Jesse White, the Secretary of State in Illinois (if you've been to an Illinois DMV recently, you've undoubtedly seen pictures of Mr. White). As at least partial justification for refusing to seat Mr. Burris, the Senate points to Mr. White's refusal to sign the official appointment given to him by Governor Blagojevich. Mr. White declines to sign because of the "moral issue" inherent in (quite literally) endorsing the action of a man who, while not convicted, has certainly done some wrong (I could make a haircut joke here, but Chicagoans have been hearing 'em for so long that they're cliche).
For our purposes, let's assume that Jesse White's refusal to sign is actually an obstacle in Mr. Burris' path to Washington--Mr. White himself claims that his signature is not necessary for Burris to be seated. What should Mr. White do? On the one hand, he has a legal obligation to sign the appointment. On the other, his morals tell him not to. His refusal functions as a de facto veto of a lawful gubernatorial action, and surely the Secretary of State has no veto power. Which should triumph, the legal duty or the moral duty? Where, if anywhere, is he getting this moral obligation? Should there be a law higher than, well, the law?
Unfortunately, I have more questions than I have answers for this one, so hopefully y'all can provide some insight. Thinking out loud here, I'm assuming that the Secretary of State takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Illinois constitution. He's subverting the constitution, so isn't he breaking that oath? On the other hand, one could argue that oaths and similar promises are made with the implicit understanding that, in a conflict between keeping one's promise and defending one's own morality, the morality interest will always prevail. When you promise to pick someone up at the airport, have you broken that promise in a morally wrong way if the only possible way to pick him up is to steal a car? (Let's say your own car broke down.)
I wish I had a conclusion that gave all the answers, but I'm pretty stumped myself. I wish I could start this page off with a discussion that resolved itself a bit more definitively, but the ongoing drama in D.C. won't be Page One material for long. I guess I'm sacrificing completeness for topicality.
_____________
and now for something completely unrelated...
If you're looking for a good rap song, check this out. The beat samples Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing", if I'm not mistaken. Like it enough? Download it here, then send me the mp3 because I don't have a way to unzip files.
What interests me is the part of this story that relates to Jesse White, the Secretary of State in Illinois (if you've been to an Illinois DMV recently, you've undoubtedly seen pictures of Mr. White). As at least partial justification for refusing to seat Mr. Burris, the Senate points to Mr. White's refusal to sign the official appointment given to him by Governor Blagojevich. Mr. White declines to sign because of the "moral issue" inherent in (quite literally) endorsing the action of a man who, while not convicted, has certainly done some wrong (I could make a haircut joke here, but Chicagoans have been hearing 'em for so long that they're cliche).
For our purposes, let's assume that Jesse White's refusal to sign is actually an obstacle in Mr. Burris' path to Washington--Mr. White himself claims that his signature is not necessary for Burris to be seated. What should Mr. White do? On the one hand, he has a legal obligation to sign the appointment. On the other, his morals tell him not to. His refusal functions as a de facto veto of a lawful gubernatorial action, and surely the Secretary of State has no veto power. Which should triumph, the legal duty or the moral duty? Where, if anywhere, is he getting this moral obligation? Should there be a law higher than, well, the law?
Unfortunately, I have more questions than I have answers for this one, so hopefully y'all can provide some insight. Thinking out loud here, I'm assuming that the Secretary of State takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Illinois constitution. He's subverting the constitution, so isn't he breaking that oath? On the other hand, one could argue that oaths and similar promises are made with the implicit understanding that, in a conflict between keeping one's promise and defending one's own morality, the morality interest will always prevail. When you promise to pick someone up at the airport, have you broken that promise in a morally wrong way if the only possible way to pick him up is to steal a car? (Let's say your own car broke down.)
I wish I had a conclusion that gave all the answers, but I'm pretty stumped myself. I wish I could start this page off with a discussion that resolved itself a bit more definitively, but the ongoing drama in D.C. won't be Page One material for long. I guess I'm sacrificing completeness for topicality.
_____________
and now for something completely unrelated...
If you're looking for a good rap song, check this out. The beat samples Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing", if I'm not mistaken. Like it enough? Download it here, then send me the mp3 because I don't have a way to unzip files.
The Obligatory Introduction
Let's keep this short, because who really likes introductions? Sure, we all enjoyed those days in high school where, instead of getting to work on the Chain Rule, we played Icebreakers or described our winter breaks (to the very people with whom we spent those December nights). But really, don't we look back fondly on those times simply because we dreaded getting back to work in earnest? Were you really paying attention when that kid in the corner named his three favorite movies? Unlike school, you theoretically want to be reading this blog, so (theoretically) an introduction that fails to relate to the theme of the blog is little more than an obstacle. Or are we reading too much into this whole thing?
So much for keeping it short.
Anyways, I've started this blog for a few reasons. One, I have some ideas and knowledge that (I feel) deserves an outlet and can't be adequately expressed in conversation with peers. Certain concepts simply aren't conducive to a coffeeshop discussion, where you're forced to shout over the Bob Dylan bootleg playing in the background and friends stray frustratingly far from the aspect of the topic that most interests you. Two, I've met a lot of intelligent people over the years, but not all of them know each other. Ideally, my buddies from high school will be arguing (respectfully) with my friends from UT. I've avoided detailing what exactly will come up in these posts, because I myself don't have much of a clue. I'd love to have a healthy share of serious posts concerning morality and politics, but who knows. I'll almost certainly explore less significant areas, such as college football and poker. I may even throw in a "life update" just in case Allie Presutti is reading (whassup Allie P), but those will be infrequent. If you ask me, life updates must be personal in order to be sufficiently compelling even for a lowly blog, and I'm too private a person to go into that much detail.
Finally, I've started this blog as a way to keep myself from being too one-dimensional. Law school basically consumed me last semester; I didn't neglect family or friends, but I sacrificed other intellectual pursuits. I'm no Renaissance Man, but it would be nice to read something that didn't require Black's Law by my side. Maybe having this blog will motivate me to expand my mind, if only so that I can have something interesting to discuss.
A few quick things: this page will not be updated routinely. I'll post only when I have something that's post-worthy. At the start, it'll be easy to come up with decent content, but as I become more entrenched in my courses, I'll likely have fewer ideas for posts.
Since I'll be talking little about myself in future entries, let me just get the basics out of the way here (on the off chance that someone who doesn't know me finds this page worthwhile). I'm a 21 year old male law student at the University of Texas Law School. I've lived in the suburbs of Chicago my entire life (up until August 2008) and spent my undergrad time at Northwestern University in Evanston. True Story: My freshman dorm was on the same street as my first childhood house. I love sports and card games, and I'll probably end up talking more about poker than you care to read...good thing it's my blog, haha. I enjoy law school but have no burning desire to become a lawyer. I'm trying to reconcile the Objectivist philosophies that Ayn Rand espouses with my Catholic values and my intangible attraction to the Kant that I've been exposed to over the years. I know very little about the great thinkers, and the little I do know is certainly simplistic and possibly inaccurate. Politically, I'm best described as libertarian, but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian. I can't think of much else about me that will relate to this blog, so I'll stop.
Also, if you're wondering where the title originated: Running it Twice is something that poker players do in order to minimize variance without influencing the players' expected value.* Think of it this way: if you and I were to flip a coin for $1000, to "run it twice" would mean that we'd flip the coin twice, each time for $500. Poker players apply that to their cash games from time to time. Anyways, I chose "Running It Twice" as my blog title because almost every other character string seemed to be claimed and because I'm hoping in part to take some law school concepts and run them past people who chose instead to contribute positively to society. Two different perspectives = "Running it Twice".
I sincerely hope you enjoy reading what I write. I encourage you to comment, especially on the posts that cover weightier topics.
*Admittedly, running it twice may nominally influence the EV of the hand in ways that might be discussed in a later post. I figured that an in-depth treatment of this would appeal to, oh, 1% of the readers out there, so I'm saving it until I've accrued more credit.
So much for keeping it short.
Anyways, I've started this blog for a few reasons. One, I have some ideas and knowledge that (I feel) deserves an outlet and can't be adequately expressed in conversation with peers. Certain concepts simply aren't conducive to a coffeeshop discussion, where you're forced to shout over the Bob Dylan bootleg playing in the background and friends stray frustratingly far from the aspect of the topic that most interests you. Two, I've met a lot of intelligent people over the years, but not all of them know each other. Ideally, my buddies from high school will be arguing (respectfully) with my friends from UT. I've avoided detailing what exactly will come up in these posts, because I myself don't have much of a clue. I'd love to have a healthy share of serious posts concerning morality and politics, but who knows. I'll almost certainly explore less significant areas, such as college football and poker. I may even throw in a "life update" just in case Allie Presutti is reading (whassup Allie P), but those will be infrequent. If you ask me, life updates must be personal in order to be sufficiently compelling even for a lowly blog, and I'm too private a person to go into that much detail.
Finally, I've started this blog as a way to keep myself from being too one-dimensional. Law school basically consumed me last semester; I didn't neglect family or friends, but I sacrificed other intellectual pursuits. I'm no Renaissance Man, but it would be nice to read something that didn't require Black's Law by my side. Maybe having this blog will motivate me to expand my mind, if only so that I can have something interesting to discuss.
A few quick things: this page will not be updated routinely. I'll post only when I have something that's post-worthy. At the start, it'll be easy to come up with decent content, but as I become more entrenched in my courses, I'll likely have fewer ideas for posts.
Since I'll be talking little about myself in future entries, let me just get the basics out of the way here (on the off chance that someone who doesn't know me finds this page worthwhile). I'm a 21 year old male law student at the University of Texas Law School. I've lived in the suburbs of Chicago my entire life (up until August 2008) and spent my undergrad time at Northwestern University in Evanston. True Story: My freshman dorm was on the same street as my first childhood house. I love sports and card games, and I'll probably end up talking more about poker than you care to read...good thing it's my blog, haha. I enjoy law school but have no burning desire to become a lawyer. I'm trying to reconcile the Objectivist philosophies that Ayn Rand espouses with my Catholic values and my intangible attraction to the Kant that I've been exposed to over the years. I know very little about the great thinkers, and the little I do know is certainly simplistic and possibly inaccurate. Politically, I'm best described as libertarian, but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian. I can't think of much else about me that will relate to this blog, so I'll stop.
Also, if you're wondering where the title originated: Running it Twice is something that poker players do in order to minimize variance without influencing the players' expected value.* Think of it this way: if you and I were to flip a coin for $1000, to "run it twice" would mean that we'd flip the coin twice, each time for $500. Poker players apply that to their cash games from time to time. Anyways, I chose "Running It Twice" as my blog title because almost every other character string seemed to be claimed and because I'm hoping in part to take some law school concepts and run them past people who chose instead to contribute positively to society. Two different perspectives = "Running it Twice".
I sincerely hope you enjoy reading what I write. I encourage you to comment, especially on the posts that cover weightier topics.
*Admittedly, running it twice may nominally influence the EV of the hand in ways that might be discussed in a later post. I figured that an in-depth treatment of this would appeal to, oh, 1% of the readers out there, so I'm saving it until I've accrued more credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)