And Along Comes Mr. Authoritarian Personality....

Although Law.com sees this as "punching holes" in other Justices' hypotheticals, I see something else:

But Justice Samuel Alito punched holes in some of his colleagues' hypotheticals, asking if those situations "occur with any frequency in the real world."

It's a wonderfully leading question, and you would have to be dumb as a sack of hammers to believe that Alito did not know the answer that would be forthcoming. So it is safe to conclude that Alito didn't intend to learn anything from the answer.

So why then a question which suggests a philosophy that, even when a statute is excessively broad, if the circumstances in which its reach would be unconstitutional are purported to be rare, we should let the statute stand and "trust the government" not to misapply it? That appears to be what Alito believes.

I'm more of the school that legislatures should draft good laws, and courts should not be forgiving of their drafting unconstitutionally vague or ambiguous laws merely because it is hypothesized that the vague or ambiguous elements will rarely come into play. In terms of whether we can trust that prosecutors won't charge people in the situations Alito would deem exceptional, my experience suggests otherwise.

Outsourcing Law Enforcement Functions

Rumors about this have circulated for years, but here's a recent article on the FBI's use of "private contractors" back in the Civil Rights Era. Cheaper than Blackwater, but....

Drug Treatment Expenditures

Although the article contains too few details to give any real insight, London's Guardian shares a report suggesting that a huge investment in drug treatment produced little in the way of results:

Despite a £131m boost in funding for the National Treatment Agency last year, the numbers emerging from treatment free of addiction has barely changed from 5,759 three years ago to 5,829 last year.

This amounts to an increase of only 70 more people, a hefty price tag of £1.85m for each addict to get clean.

The response is that "successful treatment takes from five and seven years" and thus that critics are expecting results too quickly, but also,

Every £1 spent on drug treatment saves £9.50 to the rest of society.

That sounds like a convenient, made-up figure. Why don't we invest the entire GDP in drug treatment, for an easy 950% return each year?

I would venture that the following factors are relevant to the slow start, despite a huge investment:

• The broadened availability of treatment means that it is now being offered to (or required for) a much larger population of individuals who are not ready to be sober;
• The broader reach of drug treatment is likely also to bring treatment services to dual diagnosis (or triple diagnosis) patients - those with concurrent physical and/or mental illness which complicates drug treatment - but without offering adequate, coordinated treatment for those other illnesses;
• Increased funding does not mean that there will be immediate availability of trained, qualified drug counselors necessary to staff new and expanded programs, or that newly created or funded treatment programs will be quality programs;
• Increased funding does not necessarily mean that the best treatment modalities are being identified and followed.

A lot more study is needed, along with certification of treatment programs. (And not just in the U.K.)

Issuing Driver's Licenses to 'Illegal Immigrants'

I'm not sure I understand the furor. The primary purpose of licensing drivers is to ensure that they are reasonably familiar with state traffic laws, and not likely to pose a danger to other drivers.

If you believe that all people who don't have driver's licenses will refrain from driving, well, how cute. How charmingly naive. If it's a knee-jerk "I hate illegal immigrants" thing, well, call me when you have a rational reason for opposing licensing.

But if you're aware of what happens in the real world, why wouldn't you want at least some threshold of testing to make sure that as many of the other driver's on the road as possible at least meet the minimum requirements to hold a driver's license.

But If We Look To Other Commonalities....

When I think of the word "fascism", I think of traditional definitions such as this:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The colloquial alternative meaning, "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control", also comes to mind, but I think it is fair to criticize that use as being... well, let's use the words of Jonah Goldberg's publisher,

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers” - such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale.

The first part is nonsense, of course - such accusations are occasionally made by a few people, but the assertion is an absurd overgeneralization. In terms of popularizing the meaningless, overbroad use of the term, people like Goldberg lead the field - "But who are the real fascists in our midst? writes his publisher in support of his evolving book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Alright then - so in one breath the use of the word "fascist" is an unfair tool used to impugn somebody's politics, and in the next, "By the way, liberals are fascists" - his "striking parallels":

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Goldberg apparently believes that by finding commonalities between two political ideologies, they somehow merge.

• Liberalism is not the same thing as socialism;
• The idea that "free health care", instituted in Germany under Otto Von Bismarck in 1883, emerged from Nazism defies both history and common sense, while Italy long ago emerged from fascism yet has chosen to maintain national health care despite its being introduced by Mussolini;
• I don't know of any liberals who believe in "guaranteed jobs";
• I don't know any liberals who believe in confiscating inherited wealth, nor of any in the mainstream who support any form of confiscatory estate tax;
• I am not sure what it means to expend "vast sums" on education, but I'm not aware of any mainstream conservative movement that admits to wishing to defund public education, of any mainstream "liberal" movement to significantly increase spending on public education, or of any appreciable difference in state education spending which follows from a transition from Democratic to Republican governance;
• To characterize Nazi programs of eugenics as "pro-choice" in nature verges on the obscene; outside of that context, the Nazis encouraged population growth and large families;
• The Constitution, which long predates the advent of fascism, separates church and state, although I'm sure if they were around the Founding Fathers would be the first to apologize for offending Goldberg's sensitivities (and, sorry, liberalism is not working to advance paganism);
• To the extent that some on the political left support gun control as a means of reducing crime and gun-related accidents, there's a world of difference between their methods and motivations and those of a totalitarian regime which wishes to suppress specific individuals and groups;
• The Nazis opposed smoking... and drug use, sure, as part of their goal of "bodily purity". Goldberg focuses on a nebulous, poorly implemented, and in no small part bipartisan "war on smoking", yet disregards the "war on drugs";
• The number of "liberals" who can be reasonably deemed to "loathe the free market" is infinitesimal;
• Fascists, like every developed country, offer some form of "pension" to the elderly? The horror;
• Goldberg would equate quota systems meant to advance discrimination against disfavored minorities with affirmative action?
• Goldberg would equate modern "speech codes" which protect conduct which the Nazis deemed punishable by death with Nazi-era totalitarianism as extended to University campuses?
• Because Nazis liked organic farmers, organic farmers are Nazis?
• Because Hitler was a vegetarian, vegetarians are Nazis?
• Because Himmler was an animal rights activist, animal rights activists are Nazis?

It's easy to ridicule, as it's absolutely ridiculous. Himmler was interested in Astrology - does that mean, in Goldberg's mind, Nancy and Ronald Reagan were fascists or Nazis?

The publisher's note also tries to get some mileage out of people it deems as being on the political left, yet sympathetic to totalitarianism. "W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song." No mention of Prescott Bush? It's just silly.

And yet others, who have perhaps advanced less on nepotism than Goldberg, make similar arguments in advance of the concept of "Islamofascism". Christopher Hitchens, who loves that term, argues,

The most obvious points of comparison would be these: Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. ("Death to the intellect! Long live death!" as Gen. Francisco Franco's sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression—especially to the repression of any sexual "deviance"—and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

It's interesting how there is zero overlap between what Goldberg deems to be the key aspects of fascism as applied against liberals, and what Hitchens deems to be the key aspects of fascism as applied against Islamic fundamentalists. It is interesting that Goldberg defines fascism as a tool to separate church and state, while Hitchens sees it as a tool to advance theocracy.

It is probably unfair to juxtapose Hitchens with Goldberg in this manner, given that Hitchens is trying to articulate a coherent argument whereas Goldberg's book is perpetually in progress (with the evolution of its tag line being something of a joke). However, it is fair to observe that in advancing the concept of Islamofascism, Hitchens takes a view of fascism that is at odds with any conventional concept of liberalism:

• Hostility to modernity;
• Hostility to other religions (not ot mention what they deem as inferior versions of their own religion);
• Leader worship;
• Adherence to "the power of one great book";
• Sexual repression and misogyny; and
• Advocacy, and sometimes overt acts, of censorship of the arts and literature.

The overlap he sees is largely a tendency toward totalitarianism, intolerance and dogma. It is perhaps also interesting to note that what Hitchens sees as key aspects of fascism are much more consistent with religious fundamentalism - any religious fundamentalism - than they are with fascism.

As for more traditional hallmarks of "fascism", "Islamofascism" is not associated with any particular race or nation - for those who don't know, the majority of the world's Muslims are not Arabs. It is not associated with any centralized autocratic government and, although the Taliban's example suggests it would be as autocratic as the regimes it seeks to topple, holds particular animus toward totalitarian Islamic regimes that it deems as being untrue to Islam. Advocacy of social regimentation? Happy to forcibly suppress opposition? Obviously. Advancing economic regimentation? Control of industry by the central authority? Not so much.

When you look only at the commonalities under a traditional definition of fascism, you're really speaking of autocracy, centralized control, subversion of opposing political and religious viewpoints, and subordination of the individual to the central authority.... That is to say, totalitarianism.

In short, as defined by Hitchens, the religious aspects of "Islamofascism" can be found among extremists in any major religion. (I will grant that the numbers of such extremists vary significantly, and concede that Islam has a disproportionately high number of powerful extremists as compared to other major religions, but this phenomenon is simply not unique to Islam.) The political aspects of "Islamofascism" are not fascist, but are totalitarian. And so you are left with a term which isn't actually descriptive of either Islam or fascism. But it sounds scary so, if for no other reason but your deep respect for the work of George Orwell, ya gotta stick with it.

Gerson on Eugenics

Michael Gerson's column today espouses tolerance and inclusion as an outgrowth of faith:

The portion of "The Deathly Hallows" in which young Harry realizes that he is "marked for slaughter" and accepts the necessity of his own death for the sake of love is moving -- and that love becomes a kind of magic that is stronger than death itself. For every reader, this is an affirmation of friendship, loyalty and courage. For my children, it is also the symbol of a greater sacrifice.

These, of course, are central themes of religion, particularly Christian religion. And the question naturally arises: How can a book series about tolerance also be a book series about religion? This represents a misunderstanding of both tolerance and faith. For many, tolerance does not result from the absence of moral convictions but from a positive religious teaching about human dignity. Many believe -- not in spite of their faith but because of it -- that half-bloods, werewolves and others should be treated with kindness and fairness. Above all, believers are called to love, even at the highest cost.

This makes all the more puzzling his Wednesday column on eugenics. After summarizing various eccentric viewpoints endorsed by James Watson, Gerson writes,

Watson is not typical of the scientific community when it comes to his extreme social application of genetics. But this controversy illustrates a temptation within science - and a tension between some scientific views and liberalism.

One might start out by reminding Gerson that Watson's non-scientific beliefs don't imply any tension between science and liberalism, as they are not premised upon either. But what Gerson's appears to be trying to do is to imply that abortion rights translate into a form of eugenics, an increasingly popular semantic game of the political right.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur with no genetic testing, and even where genetic testing occurs abortion remains an individual choice. Selectivity in your partner is much more likely to affect the future genome than is abortion - is it "eugenics" for somebody with a hereditable disease to choose not to procreate, or for somebody else to reject such a person as a partner? And if we are concerned about "designer children" or even gender selection, the technologies behind such concerns are applied before implantation, or even before fertilization. Gerson makes the odd statement,

Watson is correct that "we already accept" genetic screening and selective breeding when it comes to disabled children.

Are the two equivalent? And if so, what does Gerson propose as a solution to, well, people choosing their sexual partners at the expense of the disabled (or unattractive, or uneducated, or unaccompished...)? Sorry, Michael, but selectivity in dating has occurred since the dawn of time and while, yes, those icky liberal types will probably continue to advocate "marrying for love", at least in this country most conservatives are likely to resist any alternative you propose.

The left in America positions itself as both the defender of egalitarianism and of unrestricted science.... But what happens when certain scientific views lead to an erosion of the ideal of equality?

The logic of that.... "The left in America positions itself as anti-war and supportive of unrestricted science, but what happens when the scientist develop weapons technology?" "The left in America positions itself as pro-environment and supportive of unrestricted science.... But what happens if scientific discoveries are polluting in nature?" Perhaps notions of "ethics" and "common sense" are lost on Gerson, but my guess is that "the left in America" will apply them to such minor conundrums and not suddenly become tied in knots.

The counterpoint to this is also interesting. Is it a virtue of the left that it supports egalitarianism? Gerson appears to believe so, given his endorsement of the all-inclusive tolerance, kindness and affection ("Love thy werewolf as yourself") that he ascribes to faith. Is he asserting that the political right does not support egalitarianism? If we assume, as Gerson seems to believe, that acceptance of "human equality" is a virtue, is he trying to argue that both "the left" and "the right" support egalitarianism, but that "the right" somehow avoids the tension between egalitarianism and "unrestricted science" by restricting science? Is that a virtue?

In Gerson's mind, does the political right endorse only a restricted, hamstrung version of science? If so, in Gerson's mind, how crippled should right-wing science be? Anything goes, as long as it doesn't conflict with the literal text of the Bible? Or is this simply code for opposing stem cell research (or Bush's vacuous half-measures on that subject). If Gerson is satisfied with the manner in which President Bush has reconciled egalitarianism and science, I don't think he has any room to criticize the political left.

Dumbledore's Sexuality

While I understand why some parents might be concerned about their kids asking, "What does it mean to be gay," I expect that to be more of a problem in the abstract than in reality. "Gay" is a playground insult which is in use long before kids have any true conception of its meaning, and if kids haven't already asked about it I somehow doubt that the "outing" of Dumbledore is going to inspire them to press their parents for a definition. I undersand also why some people may be concerned that the disclosure somehow normalizes being gay, and thus shouldn't have been made - I just have no sympathy for that position.

In the Dallas Morning News, a columnist writes,

Stop talking about what Ron will do for a living, whom Neville will marry, what kinds of creatures Hagrid will raise.

If you didn't put it in the books, please don't tell us now.

I guess I don't want you to stop explaining completely. I'd love to know more about what inspired some of the plot details in the books. If you want to dish about how you decided on those particular inscriptions for the headstones, how you came up with the names for the characters, or how you cleverly planned the religious underpinnings of the broad arc of the story – I am all ears.

But telling us that Dumbledore is gay, as you did last week? Why would you do that?

Rowling has long been sharing those other details - bits of trivia and character details that, although vivid in her mind, ended up on the literary equivalent of the cutting room floor. Up to the Dumbledore disclosure, the same people who lament that they don't want to know anything beyond what is on the written page maintained their silence. And although they complain, as does this author,

Is Dumbledore gay? He is for you, apparently. But unless you said it in the actual books, must he be so for me? Your saying so now makes it harder for me to imagine anything different.

Why is it necessary to imagine anything different. When Richard Harris died, I could easily imagine Sir Ian McKellen being cast as Dumbledore - would it have made any difference to the character? If you start to read more into Dumbledore's nonsexual interactions with his student, merely because the author imagined him as gay, that's not really a problem with either the literature or the author's disclosure, is it. As a Time editorial suggests, some who hear the disclosure deem it somehow relevant to Dumbledore's mentoring young Harry Potter?

But here is a gay man as de-sexed as any priest—and, to uncomfortably extend the analogy, whose greatest emotional bond is with an adolescent boy: scarred, orphaned, needy Harry.

Well, that type of nonsense helps explain why teachers, real and literary, would choose to remain closeted. News flash for the slow on the uptake: Being gay doesn't make you a pedophile.

There's another side to this - people who are arguing that Rowling was correct to include a gay character in her book, but that he should have been overtly gay, and that she should also have considered having gay relationships between students. This, to me, seems to be the engrafting of the opposite set of political beliefs onto the disclosure - that if an author imagines a character as gay or is sympathetic to ideas of equality, that must be overt on the page even in children's and youth literature. Had Rowling announced, "Professor McGonagall is straight," would they have made equal demands that she have been described as dating somebody such that her sexuality would have been obvious? It's not quite an equal situation, as the assumption people tend to make in the absence of information to the contrary is one of heterosexuality, but within the confines of youth literature (save for the subgenre focusing on particular "coming of age" issues) the sexuality of teachers and school administrators isn't relevant to the story.

As for students, it is difficult to imagine how a reference to a gay couple, whether made in passing or fully developed as a subplot, would be more than a distraction. Would it have helped us understand the main characters better? (Let's see... Hermione? Immediately accepting. Harry? Perhaps surprised, but otherwise unaffected. Ron? A misunderstanding of some sort, followed by acceptance. Does that about sum it up?)

The author of the Time editorial complains,

But as far as we know, Dumbledore had not a single fully realized romance in 115 years of life. That's pathetic, and a little creepy.

As far as we know, not one of the teachers at Hogwarts has ever had a fully realized romance. Yet you obsess over this one? That's pathetic, and a little creepy.