Essentially, the fear is that some governmental bureaucratic panel is going to figure out how much a human life is worth. My question is this: how is this different than what we’ve currently got? Ignore all the legitimate arguments and criticisms about the proper role of government for a second. Let’s ignore government’s tendency to engage in waste. Let’s look specifically at the issue of “death panels.”

I’ll be the first to admit, I am not an expert on health care economics or health care insurance (as far as coverage go); however, I do know how insurance, as an industry, works. Insurance, fundamentally, is risk spreading. Everybody pays a little into a giant pot so that we all spread the risk out. The idea is that, on the whole, most people will not file claims. In addition, as a general rule, not all claims will occur at the same time; however, for the claims that do occur, insurance companies have this person called the “claims adjuster.” The claims adjuster’s job is to determine whether the claim is covered by the policy; if coverage is possible, then how much; who is covered; etc. Can you see where I’m going with this?

For health insurance, claims determination is made in a similar way. If you have a major health issue that is submitted to the insurance company, a person (or persons) will determine whether coverage is possible under the policy, how much, etc. My understanding is that their function is essentially the same as a claims adjuster. How is this different from a governmental bureaucrat making the same calculations and investigations about whether to provide coverage? Just the same, private insurance companies have denied both Grandma and Little Susie coverage to pay for vital medications and treatments. Just the same, private insurers have created a system by which they try to determine whether covering a claim is economically beneficial.

In other words, private insurance companies have bureaucratic panels that, in essence, figure out what a human life is worth. How is it different? Both have bureaucratic panels that determine the basic worth of a human life given a series of variables. No matter how you look at it, insurance is fundamentally that. It constantly determines the value of things that it insures. If it’s a car, then cost of the car. If it’s your home, then cost of the home based on appraisals. Your health? Then the cost of keeping you healthy or fixing your health. No matter how you twist it, they’re going to figure out exactly how much your life is worth and make a life/death decision based on the cost of your life.

So what’s the difference, in effect, between a public panel and a private panel?

So that leads me to my question: why all the lawyer hate? I’m not so naive as to think that all lawyers are good, but I would say the vast majority of lawyers do their job in an ethical manner. Of course, what can you really expect? The news tends to focus on the bad lawyers as opposed to the good lawyers, right? Even so, I think lawyers still catch a lot more flak than they should. Think about it. The news reports on stories about teachers molesting their students, about doctors behaving unethically on a regular basis. Yet, no one ever demands that these professions be severely limited nor do they call these professions scum.

I suppose, at the root of it all, I’m just insulted. It’s one thing to criticize my intended profession, but it’s something altogether different when people say to my face that all lawyers are the root of all the problems that this country faces (everything from the Interstate Highway system to the War on Terror). In fact, I’m a sellout for working with someone that has opposing political views! In fact, my focus on commercial law makes me too “practical” (told to me in a negative manner)! Maybe lawyers should just do everything pro bono.

Oh wait, pro bono doesn’t pay the bills.

1. I’ve graduated from law school, and
2. I’ve moved back to CA.

The first one I am particularly proud of. After three long years of toiling, I’ve managed to get my juris doctorate. Granted, I have yet to do anything with it, but, nonetheless, I am proud of my accomplishment. Now, I just have to get over the “you’re not studying!” guilt-meter that law school installed in my brain.

The trip was actually kind of fun. I decided to drive the entire 2500+ mile trip back to CA. My brother and I took the I-80 to the I-70 to the I-15 to get back. We drove through Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. The trip back was actually pretty efficient. We woke up, drove, stopped, slept. Rinse and repeat for three and half days. I’d actually like to do it again (not anytime soon) so that I could do some exploring. All-in-all, a pretty good trip.

The trip back marked the end of a particular phase of my life. I can’t be a responsibility-free student anymore. I just have to figure out what to do for the rest of it. The only thing I’ve figured out is: 1) find a job, 2) work said job, 3) ??????, 4) profit.

We see this as a film … [t]his is the first set-back for the heroes. … [i]n the end we know that the good guys will win, as in all movies. Source: Wired.

I don’t know what to say. This isn’t a movie? In real life, good guys don’t always win? I wonder how long his defiance will last in prison. I don’t know anything about Swedish prisons, but I figure prisons are, more or less, the same everywhere: regardless of how many “luxuries” the prisoners get, prison is no cake walk. Prison time is still hard time.

As sort of an analysis of the background chatter, everyone that supports TPB seems to say/think that what they’re doing is “OK” and that content industry needs to change. I tend to agree w/the fact that the content industry does need to change; however, people on the sidelines need to remember that they live in, for the most part, democracies. They need to vote in legislators that will change the copyright laws. In the mean time, no one should make any illusions about what they are doing: under current existing law, they are doing illegal acts. If you think information wants to be free, you have to set up the legal structures to allow for it. Courts, for the most part, interpret law and not your postings on Internet message boards.

Contrasted w/the CA Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage, I would say that the Iowa decision is much better. The CA Supreme Court based their decision on a state constitutional quirk that the Federal Constitution does not have. In CA, marriage is considered a fundamental right. As a fundamental right, the CA Supreme Court was able to apply a higher level of scrutiny.

On the other hand, the Iowa Supreme Court based its decision on the idea of “suspect classes.” A suspect class is one that has been severely mistreated in the past (this is a gross oversimplification of what it takes to qualify). For example, race has been categorized as a suspect class. Once a group has been categorized as a suspect class, the law(s) in question are scrutinized using a much higher standard.

So what’s the significance of this difference? For one, the Iowa decision is far easier to relate to SCOTUS’ decisions. They based much of their opinion on standards that SCOTUS itself uses on a regular basis. In addition, the Iowa decision serves a much better basis for persuasive authority. Since Iowa based its decision on a sort of “one glove fits all” type of legal analysis, other supreme courts of other states can look to Iowa’s constitutional law for guidance. Finally, the most significant thing about this opinion is the fact that the opinion is practically pure legal reasoning. It analyzes all the issues presented by both sides in a no nonsense sort of way. Here’s a squib from the unpublished opinion:

If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed.  Consequently, equal protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself.’ ” Source: Des Moines Register.

Completely unadulterated legal analysis. No dealing with the touchy-feely garbage of “their love is just as special.” The court was unafraid of stating the law as it is and dryly analyzing the issue without being bogged down by partisan politics. There is barely any dicta (stuff judges say for the sake of saying that holds almost no legal significance, but gives insight into their belief system). The opinion doesn’t mention religious objections until the very end, but deftly refutes and reassures religious objectors:

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles.  These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage.  Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views.  A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.  The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.  This result is what our constitution requires. Source: Des Moines Register.

In one swift move, the court reaffirms the difference between the legal definition of marriage and religious definition in addition to the myriad of religious views on marriage. Needless to say, I am thoroughly impressed w/Iowa’s decision. Hats off, Iowa. Hats off.

I suppose my main criticism of the test is that it doesn’t account for my willingness to compromise w/the opposition in favor of practical solutions. Maybe that takes me out of the extreme left? The questions and answers are pretty simplistic. For example, there’s a question that asks how much we agree w/the basic statement that “unions are good” (or was it bad?). My views on labor unions are far more complex than that simple dichotomy (e.g., the more skilled the labor, less of a need for a union). The test only really checks for pure ideology and not so much political realities. FiveThirtyEight has a pretty good analysis that basically says:

If conservatives and liberals had fundamental disagreementson [over] most major political questions, you’d expect to see a statistically significant inverse correlation in their responses. But you don’t see that. Conversely, if they agreed on most of these fundamental questions, with the differences being only around the periphery, you’d expect to see a statistically significant positive correlation in their responses. But you don’t really see that either. Source: FiveThirtyEight.

So that whole bit about the “culture wars” and the “disconnect” that liberals (or conservatives) have from the “true” America? Garbage.

In any case, for the uninitiated, the game puts players on an island with five traditional basic resources (wood, brick, rock/ore, sheep, wheat) and one unconventional resource (the bandit). Players are given the task of building settlements and roads in the pursuit of expanding their empires. Much of the game is centered around resources that are randomly placed on the board. Since resources are used to build roads and settlements, there is also heavy emphasis on trade. For instance, if you don’t have enough brick production, you can trade with other players for brick in exchange for whatever it is they want. The bandit is used to halt resource production (e.g. placing it on a “sheep” resource piece will halt sheep production for the adjacent settlement until someone moves it). You can also trade three resource cards for one of another kind or trade via ports (that have their own conversion rates). The last important playing piece is the … I don’t remember the name of the cards, but they allow you to take certain aspects of the game under your personal control for your turn. For example, normally, you only control the bandit when you roll a seven. There is a card that will give you control of the bandit and place it wherever you want. You can kind see where I’m going with this.

All of this is done with the sole purpose of accruing “Victory Points.” You get points for building settlements, having the biggest army (by buying bandit cards) and building the longest road (there are a few other possibilities, but I don’t recall them at the moment). Outside of those very basic rules, players can do almost whatever they want. Trade three of one resource for one resource? Sure. Use your roll w/the bandit to threaten someone into giving you resources? Not only fine, but encouraged.

I didn’t really get the feel for the game until my third play through. When the game says “you can trade for anything,” it really means it. At one point, I traded a friend futures in my ore production. Other strategies included my attempt to completely dominate two resources with careful management of the bandit and trade while playing my two other friends against each other. Even with the many options on the table, the game is still subject to a few problems. It’s really easy to figure out the two basic strategies of the game. Most players either go straight to road building or army building (biggest army or longest road = 2 victory points each). There is a middle road, but it’s harder and you have to be a little sneaky. There are apparently more “advanced techniques” for ruining friendships, but I think I’ll stick to casual play styles for now.

In the end, I really like this game. There is a heavy trade element in addition to an attack element that is carefully limited. It also teaches the power of reciprocity very quickly (keep banditing blue and they’ll find a way to screw you). You really are trying to build a civilization. Well, at least on a casual basis, anyway.

I loves me the political satire!

I’m about two books in and am thoroughly enjoying the stories. It’s a bit slower paced than, say, William Gibson’s Sprawl Trilogy, but the pacing isn’t really an issue. Most of the books are written from the viewpoint of Culture-based characters, thus, concepts that are normal for us (like rank and hierarchy) are completely foreign to them. I really like this aspect of the books. It’s social commentary of our value system done from the perspective of a completely detached 3rd party.

On top of the social commentary, Banks does a really good job on the actual writing of the book. There are some plot twists and some of them appear very obvious. The great thing about Banks is that he creates such a flexible enough universe so that the plot twists can easily go in any number of directions. He creates a very complex story in a very complex universe, but he writes in a very straightforward manner.The reader is very rarely left confused.

I just started the third book in the series. So far, so good.

I’ve actually considered reading “Atlas Shrugged,” but my main complaint is that it’s a really long read. I’m mostly satisfied with reading about Rand’s viewpoint on Wikipedia in addition to listening to true believers gush over Rand’s greatness. Needless to say, but I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of what that viewpoint entails. I mostly reject the broader implications of the Randist philosophy, but I like what it says on the micro level. On the other hand, my view is definitely incomplete. I probably won’t have the full picture until I’ve actually read “Atlas Shrugged” in addition to the rest of her bibliography, but every time I set my mind to reading her book I always encounter the same old problem: it’s so long.

In any event, given my liberal quasi-socialist tendencies, I find it amusing that Amazon suggests I read an author that tends to run counter to my philosophical leanings. It’s a little like asking me to read and enjoy Ann Coulter.