Having been off active duty since May 2011, I have had the desire to re-evaluate my own personal decision to join United States Marine Corps. While it is impossible to change any decisions we have made in life it always worthwhile to extrapolate what lessons we can from those decisions, and also understand and appreciate the ramifications of those choices. By being aware of how the past can dictate the future, it is always important to take stock, from time to time, of our own choices in life, and share what we have learned with others.
Initially I think it would be beneficial to list the pros of military service:
Gain valuable life experience that few others will
Enjoy education benefits for college
Ability to travel/visit multiple countries for free
Become a more competitive applicant when applying for jobs
Are more aware of foreign policy realities
Gain an appreciation for this country that few people can match
True these are only a few of the main benefits, but they encapsulate the larger good that comes from joining the military. My desire to continue onto a career in public service stems from my time in the Marine Corps. For many former military members the opportunities presented to them to help their community, and country, leaves them with the desire to continue that line of work. That explains why many veterans continue onto careers as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics. They combine their desire to be an active person with their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. However, military service is not divorced from any negative consequences. The toll military life can takes on its service members, especially during times of prolonged conflict, can be great.
Below is a short list of the cons of military service:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Higher likelihood of suicide, and substance abuse
Places enormous strain on personal relationships
Combat
Feelings of loneliness and isolation after leaving military
Transition to civilian life is not always easily made
Again these are not all of the negative consequences of military service, but they do generally highlight one of the main issues that is a result of serving in the military. Most people will join right after high school and will leave whatever life they knew behind. While that individual is going on 1, or, 2, or 3, or even 4 deployments their friends are successively going through college at the same rate. You experiences in life began to wildly differ and the disconnect begins. Although technology allows for the ability to call friends and family much more easier than before it does not provide the necessary relief. The military member's day to day life is in a constant state of preparation for combat, while his or her friends are studying for the next exam, securing the next internship, or planning their upcoming spring break.
So at the end of the day did I make the right decision? Was the five years spent serving as a U.S. Marine worth the sacrifice?
While I was still in the answer seemed clear, absolutely not. My friends were getting the best of both worlds, while I was packing my bags for another deployment. However, my attitude has changed since leaving the military and I have began to fully appreciate all that it offered me. Most obvious is the free education that I am currently enjoying. The worry of student loans and paying toff that debt after I graduate is not something I am concerned about it. Additionally, the pride that I have taken away from being a U.S. infantry Marine is something that I will have for the rest of my life. I was fortunate enough to take part in a piece of history while serving in Afghanistan. While the reasons why we were there, and what we actually accomplished will always open for debate, the point is that I was there. When my kids are in school, and their history teacher talks about the war in Afghanistan, they will have the opportunity to ask me what it was really like. That is an experience that I would not trade anything for.
So in sum, the sacrifice was worth the payoff for me. Everyone's situation will be different and each person will make what what they will of their own military experience. I for one would not have done anything differently. I would not be who I am today, or have the opportunities that I do without those five years spent as a U.S. Marine.
If you are considering whether to join the military think long and hard about. Be honest with yourself about what you want of out it, and what you are willing to sacrifice. If at the end of the day you are willing to leave the life you know and be part of something much bigger then yourself, then by all means do it. But don't say I did warn you that there will be some tough days ahead for you.
There was a time in America where the only individuals being elected to higher office were white, older, protestant men. While it is true that in many places this is still the status quo there has been an undeniable change occurring, albeit slowly. The Millennial attitude on many social issues here in the United States will be, in my opinion, the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.
The election of John F. Kennedy, who was a practicing Catholic, illustrated a milestone in religious tolerance in the U.S. Progressing a few decades forward Barack Obama was elected, which again signified a turning point in the electorate's views on who was a "qualified" candidate. Mitt Romney's campaign also highlighted this shift from the importance of being a certain Christain denomination, to as long as you are Christain that will be good enough. Although there was still some heavy criticism for Romney's adherence to the Mormon faith, in the end his message of creating jobs and putting the country back on track trumped the importance of what god he prayed or how he went about doing it, thus securing his nomination as the Republicans party's presidential candidate.
We, the Millennials, have been witness to some of these transformations, and others we have read about in textbooks. A recent example of religion in politics being placed on the back burner is the issue surrounding marriage equality. For decades this was a toxic political topic that, if mentioned publicly, would almost certainly result in a politician's next election being a catastrophic loss. Now as Millennials come to age, and began to assert their presence in the ballot box, and in survey polls there has been a drastic shift in public attitude surrounding the acceptment of gay marriage. I strongly believe that this is one of the largest indicators that religion-based politics and policy is on a downward trend.
In addition to some of the domestic changes occurring there has also been foreign events and policies that have completely restructured the views that many Millennials have had. The introduction of a "religious war" by Islamic extremists against the West, Iranian religious leaders calling the United States the "Great Satan", and the war in Iraq have all taken an extremely sectarian tone. Instead of the Bible, Koran, and the Torah being the instruction manual for how to people live in peace, it has consistently and frequently been used as propaganda to promote a certain ideology. Usually this thought process is centered around the exclusion of some, while reinforcing their own position of power through manipulation and coercion.
So if all of these events are fundamentally changing how the Millennial generation will vote in the future, what are the consequences? Will our willingness to vote into office a non-believer mean the systemic downfall of our country? Will an atheist president possess no moral compass for us to follow, resulting in disaster? I dare say that these possibilities are remote to say the least. The ability for a candidate to not be tied down to one religious group or another will only make that candidate more able to perform the duties of that elected office. A candidate who can cross not just racial and ethnic lines, but also religious ones will make that candidate a better representative of the people. Furthermore, an atheist president will be willing to look past the religious doctrine concerning issues and view them in a more realistic fashion. Each new administration controlling the White House will have its own new and unique issues to deal with. In the past religiously orientated presidents have stalled on some issues, and outright ignored others because of their beliefs. The time for recognizing the tidal shift in the American electorate is now. This reason, along with many others, is why the question of whether Americans will elect an openly atheist president is not a matter of if, but when.
Throughout our nation's history the constitution has been the one stable legal doctrine binding us together as one, and conversely dividing us as well. Throughout time, and as the years since ratification have continued to pass, a debate has emerged. This discussion has centered around how in fact to treat and read the constitution. Should it be taken at face value, with judges attempting to determine the meaning of the law, and not the legislators intent? Or should the constitution be treated as a living breathing document, subject to an open interpretation that could potentially make it more adaptable to resolve the constantly changing problems faced by our society? This debate has spawned several questions that are extremely relevant today. Some of the queries include: Is there a reasonable argument to be made that the text of this document was broadly written to encourage adaptability, or not? What are the ramifications of both perspectives, and does one side of the argument make more sense as more time has passed? Is there a restriction or elimination of rights by interpreting the constitution as a "living document" or, by viewing the text as historically immobile, does the country fail to address its new issues by utilizing a "stagnant" document? Finally, what interpretation, will serve the best interests of the up and coming generation in the future, as the courts begins to deals with 21st century issues.
One one side of this argument, championed by Antonin Scalia, is the need for a textualist reading of the constitution. Textualism is:
A formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquires into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislator in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justices and the rectitude of the law.
This form of interpretation takes the letter of the law and injects a careful amount of reason into it. In the book A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Justice Antonin Scalia he defines his brand of textualism as:
To be a textualist in good standing, one need not be too dull to perceive the broader social purposes that a statute is designed, or could be designed, to serve; or to hidebound to realize that new times require new laws. One need only to hold the belief that judges have no authority to pursue those broader purposes or write those new laws. (P.23)
In other words, Scalia is arguing, that a textualist interpretation of the constitution should be focused on the meaning of the statute not the unsaid intention of the legislators. Scalia reasons that by adhering to the letter of law displayed before him there is a higher degree of consistency in judicial rulings. The arbitrariness, sometimes associated with court rulings, will be kept to a minimum and a closer adherence to precedent will result, thus strengthening the law which our country follows. This preferred choice of interpretation has been followed by other justices as well. Justice Holmes said, "Only a day or two ago-when counsel talked of the intentions of the legislature, I was indiscreet enough to say I don't care what their intentions was. I only want to know what the words mean." (P.22-23) However, one must question whether this interpretive practice is the most logical for legal interpretation. Are there no other factors that need to be accounted for? Would taking into account the legislative intent be wholly corruptible to statute interpretation? Finally, since the issues faced by the first Supreme Court are so radically different than those faced by today's court, could a reasonable person postulate that the constitution does not in fact contain language to address every new issue that arises?
Justice Scalia acknowledged these questions, and also whole heartily rebuked them as well. He argues that being a textualist is the only possible way to balance these competing demands on interpreting law. Scalia also emphasizes within his essay that, "Textualism should not be confused with so-called strict constructionism." (P.23) However, within his wording, he does leave the door open for the allowance of the text to be construed to some degree. Scalia wrote,
A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means. (P.23)
Although Justice Scalia defends the practice of textualism, as the preferred method of constitutional interpretation, he seems to be retracting on his own legal philosophy. The necessity for equating some amount of intent, either legislative or other, to calculate the appropriate amount a text should be construed, appears to be inconsistent with textualism as a whole. Furthermore, an argument can be made that recognizing, and understanding, the intent of legislators would help to better interpret the law when it is called into question. If I for example, received instructions from my employer to complete a task, I and my employer are better served if I also know the intent of his instructions. By only knowing half of the possible information I might only do half of what he wants. Taking into account the intent, as well as the meaning of a statute, seems to only better serve the public as a whole. While this reasoning might at face value appear to have some validity, Scalia and the textualist philosophy disagree.
Justice Scalia laid out his position opposing the incorporation of legislative intent very clearly when he wrote in his essay,
My view that the objective indication of the words, rather that the intent of the legislature, is what constitutes the law leads me, of course, to the conclusion that legislative history should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statutes meaning. (P.30)
Textualists, championed through Justice Scalia's essay, lay out precisely why this form of interpretation is dangerous, unreliable, and destined to create numerous unintended consequences. One of the first reasons for rejecting legislative history, by Scalia, is that "extensive use of legislative history in this country dates only from about the 1940's." (P.30) Furthermore, due to this unexpected inclusion of this new form of evidence when arguing cases, "we have developed a legal culture in which lawyers routinely--and I mean routinely--make no distinction between words in the text of a statute and words in its legislative history." (P.31) Justice Scalia also argues that the use of legislative history, especially in current times, is nonsensical for the simple fact that the intent of law by the legislatures themselves is commonly not known. So for the court to take into account the legislative intent/history, while the legislators themselves are ignorant of it, simply results in a gross mistake in the court's judgement. Scalia supports this claim in his essay when he wrote,
The floor is rarely crowded for a debate, the members generally being occupied with committee business and reporting to the floor only when a quorum call is demanded or a vote is to be taken. And as for committee reports, it is not even certain that members of the issuing committees have found time to read them..."(P.32)
While Scalia's assertions seem to make the argument for textualism valid, the history of the courts decisions seem to point to other factors that are important for interpretation. A Justice that approaches the issue of interpretation differently is a man named Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer. In his book title, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, he wrote,
As history has made clear, the original Constitution was insufficient. It did not include a majority of the nation within its "democratic community." It took a civil war and eighty years of racial segregation before the slaves and their decedents could begin to think of the constitution as theirs. Nor did women receive the right to vote until 1920. the "people" had to amend the Constitution, not only to extend its democratic base but also to expand more fully to secure basic individual (modern) liberty. But the original document sowed the democratic seed. (P.32-33)
Within this passage Justice Breyer is recognizing the constitution's ability for adaptation through constitutional amendments. But what if this "perfect form of government" fails to be functional? In that scenario what recourse is there for active liberty, when the minority has no voice? Is there a recourse for such groups, and how does the interpretation of the constitution, and the judicial philosophy of judges help or hurt the progression of our country's law and policies. Would the lack of action by the government, like now, permit the more expansive use of judicial policy making by judges?
Illustrating Justice Breyer's more expansive view on constitutional interpretation that occurred before his time, is the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut.
This is an interesting case to examine because it highlights how these two opposing views of constitutional interpretation began to fundamentally disagree. The case revolved around the legal question of whether a Connecticut state law forbidding the use of contraceptives "violated the right of marital privacy which is with the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." However, since there is no explicit clause, sentence, phrase, or amendment stating that such a right to privacy exists what is a Justice to do? According to a textualist, the clear answer would be to apply the law or lack of law according to the written Constitution before him or her. The following video by justice Scalia illustrates his reasoning on the topic.
In accordance with the textualist philosophy, the only clear answer would be that since no such right to privacy exists then no such right can me construed from the language of the text. But, is this not in conflict with the other basic rights Americans are entitled to under the constitution? Under other amendments there seems to be an explicit intent for privacy, because without a certain degree of privacy these other rights might become moot. Would the notion that a important right, such as privacy, be an implied right by other constitutional amendments? This was the thought process of the majority in that case, and it set an important precedent.
While in many Supreme Court cases, the language of the statue is clear and their opinions are only needed as a confirmation/clarification for the rest of the judicial system. These two opposing judicial philosophies discussed here today are usually only significant when there is ambiguity in the law, or when the issue before the court is without precedent. An article by the New York Times made a note of this under appreciated judicial harmony. Additionally, the article noted that disagreement only regularly occurs if the cases that go beyond the normal "letter of the law."
There have been no dissents in more than 60 percent of the 46 cases decided so far this term. At this point last year, the justices were unanimous just 48 percent of the time according to the statistics compiled by Scotusblog. In the two terms before that, 52 percent of the cases decided by now were unanimous.
So this is where the real crux of the debate lies. Simply stated, what judicial interpretive method is better for our country and our constitution? In my opinion, the essence of textualism is in fact a good thing. This is because interpreting law cannot be a subjective process where biases, maliciousness, and discriminatory beliefs are the standard to which judgements are made. However, it is not the only necessary component to substantive and comprehensive judicial interpretation. Justice Breyer's recognition that the "original constitution was insufficient" is not a condemnation of our founding fathers, but a recognition of mankind's inability of attaining perfection. I believe that clutching until the last breath, to only the text of a document is not just irresponsible but dangerous. Frequently, the literal translation of any text does not in fact meet all of the author's intentions for the reader. A passage of almost any book can mean almost anything depending on who and how a persons "reads" it. The intent of the author is what guides a reader to the true meaning of the words on the paper. The medium of written language is beautiful but also restricting. Once pen meets paper, and words are written, the evolution of the thought abruptly ends. Punctuation places an arbitrary conclusion to ideas and the intangible intent of those words are restricted to the interpretation that letters give to thoughts. We rarely ever run an idea, no matter the level of our intelligence, to its conclusion. What is driving these ever evolving ideas is the intent which initially bore them out of our minds. So with this understanding, is not unreasonable to take into account, the intent of the authors of statues, when deciding difficult and ambiguous cases. Without acknowledging the intent and/or implied rights, the ability for a woman to choose what she may or may not want to do with her body, or whether a married couple could choose to take contraceptives would not exist. Another example of where textualism has had difficulty defending a commonsensical approach to constitutional interpretation, in my opinion, has been concerning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The second amendment as written in the constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A textualist, like Justice Scalia, will look at this amendment and see the answer to whether citizens can own "Arms" quite clearly. However, the textualist also seemingly ignore the other three quarters of the amendment and fail to place this amendment within the context of the modern United States. Justice Breyer's views on this topic illustrate an opposite but important perspective.
First the right to keep and bear arms was predicated on the recognition, in 1787, that it was essential to the success of "a well regulated militia." However in 2014 there are no militias. The closest organization representing any sort of "state militia" would be a National Guard unit. But even if these these National Guard units were commonly accepted as today's equivalent of a state militia, are the members of the National Guard expected to provide their own firearms? Is each National Guard member required to purchase an M-16 A2 assault rifle? Obviously the answer is no. Each member of the National Guard is issued a weapon by the government, and that weapon is not kept by the National Guardsman, but instead it is stored on a military base within a secure building called an armory, where only a select number of people have access to it. So if those facts are true, and a textualist interpretation of the Amendment could possibly mean that unless someone was part of the state militia (National Guard) then said person has no right to "keep and bears arms?" Because was not the main point of the 2nd Amendment national defense, and not self-defense?
However, what if a different form of interpretation was applied to this amendment? Would the resulting interpretation mean that no American in any state could own a firearm? I suppose that if taken to the extreme this could indeed happen, but it does not have to be. Firstly, this amendment has to be placed within the context of the times. In 1787 the "arms" were single shot muskets that were inaccurate and slow to reload. Now private gun owners can purchase full blown assault rifles that fire large caliber rounds extremely fast, and can also be aided by a variety of scopes and sights. With the slue of mass shootings where the perpetrators used assault rifles, could a reasonable person interpret the Constitution to mean that the authors of the 2nd amendment do not intend for this particular right to be extended so drastically? There have been other cases where the court has recognized the dramatic change in technology and has applied the law accordingly. Most notably are cases regarding the 4th amendment. In 1787 when our constitution was ratified there were no telephones, Internet, thermal scanners, airplanes, drones, or global positioning satellites (GPS). Yet the court has recognized that utilizing these devices does in fact violate a person's right to privacy and unresonable searches and seizures. While these specific technologies were not implicitly mentioned, the court reasonably took into account the founding father's intent and balanced the protection of citizen's rights, with the meaning of the Constitution in modern times.
So why has there been such a push back about applying this same standard of common sense to the 2nd amendment? How could one misconstrue an amendment aimed at expanding national defense and instead promoting it as "self-defense?" Each group, whether pro-gun control or anti-gun control, will both use the text of the 2nd amendment to help argue their position. However, as the millennial generation comes to age, casts their votes, runs for office, and becomes supreme court justices, how will we in fact react to these changing times? And how will our generation's judges interpret the Constitution? The answers to these questions will be a result of how one deems the correct way of interpreting our constitution. Many of us have lived a life where rapid change on any variety of things is now the status quo. We have accepted the fact that when we buy a new phone, T.V, or computer, we will only have the latest model for about 6 seconds. Change is what has defined our generation. Whether it is U.S foreign policy, attitudes on social issues, domestic politics, or even what is important in life, we have all seen how each of these items change, stabilize, and without fail change again. With these experiences, a future Justice from our generation, might one day sit on the bench and approach interpretation somewhat differently than his or her predecessors. His or her focus, cognizant of the change that sweeps our world so often, will be on interpreting the constitution within the context of the times.
While all societies need a strong foundation to build upon, we should not look to the foundation as a limit to how far we can grow and adapt. Our foundation is the Constitution. It has laid out the rights that we as citizens are entitled to. It has provided the instructions as to how our government should be run, and it has been a document that has bound us together as one country. However, at the end of the day it is still a document written 227 years ago. The only way for it to survive and remain relevant is being able to adapt to the needs of the people that follow it. This underlying point is why interpretation matters so much. If only applying the words of this document, without the intent of its authors, to the important cases facing the court today, the hope for a peaceful resolution is not likely. While serving as a U.S Marine an often cited mantra was "adapt or die." The Constitution can maintain its important foundation, but if it is not interpreted to fit the times then perhaps one day we as a country might just ignore it altogether.
An interesting phenomenon has been affecting the Millennials. We, as a generation, have begun to renounce religion at historically high rates. This begs the question as to why. In a world where every natural disaster, famine, drought, and war are brought to us in the convenience of our own home, one would think that we might be more, not less interested, in seeking religious answers to mankind's continuing calamity. So what is the reason for you and I not placing the same trust in religion that our previous human brethren did?
A study by Pew Research looked at this issue in great detail. Their report said,
By some key measures, Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation – so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 – are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Indeed, Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle (20% in the late 1990s) and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults (13% in the late 1970s). Young adults also attend religious services less often than older Americans today. And compared with their elders today, fewer young people say that religion is very important in their lives.
If this is the new landscape of American religiosity what are the ramifications? Is our country destined to succumb to the wickedness of temptation, and resemble a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, simply waiting for the Lord's vengeance? I am of the opinion that this is unlikely, however I am prone to mistakes now and again. I personally view this growing lack of faith in religion as movement towards social liberation. In too many instances politics and public policy have been the brain child of religiously motivated individuals. Since the Millennial generation has begun to assert their voting power, a significant change in the direction of our country has begun to occur. One notable example is the wide spread acceptance of same-sex marriage. A graph by Pew Research illustrates this significant shift.
While I am only speculating there seems to be a correlation between lack of religious affiliation and new found acceptance of social issues. But what does does the future hold for other important policy issues as our generation begins to tackle them? What if, as the Millennial generation ages, we revert to more conservative attitudes? Will this tide of change become merely a high water mark only to be surpassed as our children begin their challenge of dictating the direction of our country? Before we can begin to answer those questions we must first address why we have had a falling out with God? While one could postulate for days on end as to why this happened I believe there are several simple reasons.
As the Millennial generation came into age we grew up listening to case after case of the Catholic Church's pedophilia crisis. This scandal, for myself at least, put the juxtaposition of God and religion in front of my eyes. For many years, these two identities were seen as one. As goes God, goes the Church, and vice versa. Instead though, the hypocrisy of one cast the shadow of hypocrisy on the other. God was no more above judgment than religion. This series of scandals by the Catholic Church soured, in my opinion, many Millennial's attitudes about religion from an early age.
Another major factor was the introduction of Jihad by Muslim extremists. Millennial's on one hand, saw the Catholic Church employing priests who were pedophiles, and on the other hand were watching their country being attacked by what some labeled as "holy warriors". There was not much left in the middle for us to wrap, what little faith we had left in god, around. In addition to these events we have seen religion used time and again, throughout the world, to do the bidding of men with guns. Rarely is it the rallying force of good, but instead a tool of manipulation by those in power. So if this is true, and the abuse of the religious institution is the culprit in my generation's relationship with a deity, why do we not love God? If we could separate one from the other, could we not still maintain a part of our heart to love our creator, whatever, or whoever that is? Perhaps some of us can, and in reality there are plenty of us who do. But for me myself, the church that proclaims God, is God himself. There is no separation between the two because they are one and the same. The hypocrisy of one only demonstrates the hypocrisy of the other.
So when the question arises, "why don't Millennial's love god?" I respond, "because God did not love us first" and then take a selfie.
Each day you and I are positive in the assumption that when the faucet is turned on, water will undoubtedly flow. This seemingly predictable fact of life has only been the reality for a short period of time historically speaking. For most of the history of human civilization, clean running water right into one's home was non-existent. It was not uncommon for battles to be fought over territory that contained rivers or lakes. This is due to the obvious, but often forgotten fact, that water is a necessity. Without it, life for all practical intensive purposes stops. However even knowing this history, and occasionally appreciating the availability of water, especially here in the United States, why the hell is it so cheap? Using my own monthly bills as an example my water costs per month are approximately $20-$25. But the question remains, is that too cheap? Should I pay more for the access to this essential ingredient to life? Or should Bill gates pay 18 dollars a gallon, and I pay pennies?
I have often wondered why, especially during a drought, does the cost of water not wildly fluctuate. Why doesn't the cost of water per gallon double, triple, or quadruple during a water shortage. Another important commodity, oil, reacts according to these basic economic principles of supply and demand, but water is something wholly different. Is this an adequate system that is currently in place? Should water allocated for essential uses be cheaper than water that is destined to fill a swimming pool? Would it be fair for wealthy people to pay more for their water than poor people? Is there a fundamental constitutional right to water? Finally, where does equitable payment for a necessary commodity come to terms with the necessity of the commodity that there is not enough of all the time? And at this intersection what are some potential solutions to help resolve whatever disparity may exist.
The idea of creating a "two-tier" water pricing system is not a new idea. The concept of charging more people when they have the means to pay is incorporated into our tax system, and has been a concept used repeatedly throughout human history. The www.sfgate.com discussed this idea and made some compelling arguments.
There are California water agencies that price water for residents in two tiers like a progressive income tax: The first tier is the least expensive. The problem isn't this initial allocation of water that people need for everyday essentials (sanitation, drinking and cooking). The problem is that the second tier of less essential water is too cheap. The price Californians pay for water doesn't reflect the risk involved in relying on the Sierra Nevada snowpack, rainy winters and the Colorado River. Any true cost of water must reflect this risk. If not, when there is a drought, the users are unprepared.
Not only should all California water agencies price water in two tiers, but they should be raising the price of less-essential water. In doing so, consumers will be able to choose how they want to conserve. Even more importantly, California's thousands of entrepreneurs have the incentive to improve, create and market water-efficient products and processes. Raising prices means that millions of consumers and thousands of entrepreneurs will be working on reducing water use instead of waiting for orders from the governor.
So what if we, as a state, did do this? Setting aside the political maneuvering that would be required, is the fundamental idea worth entertaining? In my opinion the answer is unequivocally yes. Treating water like any other resource that is subject to the principles of productive and functioning markets would enable innovation to take root and thrive. In many instances government is not in the business of innovating novel solutions to complex problems. Government can be utilized as a funding source, but real success comes from financially motivated entrepreneurs. These men and women have the capacity, as proven throughout history, to solve problems while also making money. Creating a water conservation market that would incorporate both private and public business and institutions could achieve water usage goals and sustainability in California.
However, it would be irresponsible to continue down this line of reasoning without addressing the very real issue of a person's "right" to water. Not being a trained lawyer the question to this answer does not appear as clear cut. First, one has to agree or disagree that a person has a right to water. Second, if the answer is yes, how far does this right extend, and what can the law dictate to a water market, as to how much or little they can legally charge? According to the United Nations the "right to water" does exist. The United Nations resolution stated,
"The human right to water places certain responsibilities upon governments to ensure that people can enjoy "sufficient, safe, accessible and affordable water, without discrimination"
An interesting phrase within the UN's definition is, "accessible and affordable water, without discrimination." Would a reasonable person claim that a two-tier water pricing is discriminatory, or simply practical? Or does "discrimination" only apply to water restrictions based on someone's religion, nationality, ethnicity, or sex? The wording of this right is ambiguous but it does lay a foundation to work off, if one makes certain assumptions. For the sake of argument, let say that discrimination only applies to instances where restricted water access is due to an individuals religion, nationality, ethnicity, or sex. If this is true than there is an argument to be made that a two tier water pricing system could in fact be legal, and also practical. In short, the status-quo of water usage and pricing has not kept up with the needs of the public as a whole.
In California more people live here than ever before, and the demands on the water supply, due to a variety of factors, has never been higher. The current policy of voluntary conservation, as pointed in the SFgate article, rarely if ever work. Additionally, the flat cost of water does not allow innovative market based conservation techniques to be utilized. A new approach needs to be taken when discussing water allocation, use, and cost. While a person does have a right to access affordable water, that doesn't necessarily mean that Warren Buffet and I need to pay the same price each time we flush our toilet, or fill up our cup.
On one of the most important days in America, Super Bowl Sunday, citizens of this great country were subjected to perhaps one of the most built up, and then anti-climatic football games in the history of planet Earth. Thankfully however, we were able to enjoy the many Superbowl commercials that have come to epitomize this non-official national holiday. Most of the time these commercial come and go and I am left at the end still trying to determine what exactly they were selling. Then every now and again there is a commercial that is so beautifully simple that even though there is a multi-national corporation only trying to sell sugar water behind it (Coke-Cola) you still have to acknowledge that you are impressed.
As I am sure, about you and about a hundred million other people saw this ad. And the majority of us afterwards felt perhaps a little better about ourselves and our country. It was very interesting to see and hear such an inclusive rendition of one of our nation's most famous songs. Perhaps it was another step on the path towards recognizing equality of all Americans. However, as with any good thing, there always has to be one guy or gal, that somehow miss-interprets even the most basic message. Whether it was this commercial or even a passage from Obama's State of The Union speech, it is inevitable that concise clear messages will be placed out of context and used as propaganda so support someone else's point of view. In this case, political conservative television and radio pundit Glen Beck had his own , albeit strange, views on the "true" meaning of Coke-Cola's commercial. Salon.com's Elias Isquith reported on this,
During his radio show on Monday, Glenn Beck discussed the Coca-Cola Super Bowl ad that's got some conservatives threatenting a boycott. He hated it, of course. Beck said his first respsonse, when he saw the ad, was to ask, "Why?" "You need that to divide us, politically? 'Cause that;s all this ad is," He continued. After Beck's co-host, Pat Gray, chimed in, describing the as "in your face," Beck went further. "It's an in your face--and if you don't like it, if you're offended by it, then you're a racist. If you do like it, well then you're for immigration. That's what it is. You're for progress. That's all this is--is to divide people.
After having read Beck's response I was left just a bit confused.On one hand, Beck is arguing, if you are against the ad then you are racist, but if you are for the ad then you support immigration policy. This is a far to complex, and yet also to simplistic approach to take on this commercial. I do not believe that this commercial is trying to "divide" as at all. In fact I believe quite the opposite is true. This commercial is reminding this country of its long history of diversity, and furthermore the ability to coexist as one nation, for the most part, should be celebrated. Coke's choice to have multiple languages sing the song only reinforces the fact that it takes many types of people to make this country what it is today. This all inclusive attitude is one shared by many of the people that make up the Millennial generation. We have grown up in schools, and also in work, interacting with all different types of people. The racism so prevalent in the early to mid part of the 20th century seems like an alien concept to us. However, we are also not so naive to think that racism itself has been eradicated. It still exists and it still affects people on an everyday basis. That being said, we as a country have progressed more on this issue that at any point in our history, and any claim that a Coke-Cola commercial was intended to "divide" us it just flat out wrong.
So even though the actual Super Bowl was a bust, the commercials, and Coke's in particular, was worth the three hours I spent sitting in my over-stuffed chair. Rock on America and next time I want to hear the National Anthem sung in seven different languages!
The
pre-requisite to any conversation is a foundational thesis from which to build
off. The term public intellectual can mean many different things to many
different people. However, professor Stephen Mack’s view on the role and duties
of a public intellectual concisely articulates what will be the thesis of this
post.Professor Mack wrote,
“It is also, however, the obligation of every citizen in a
democracy. Trained to it or not, all participants in self-government are duty
bound to prod, poke, and pester the powerful intuitions that would shape their
lives. And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy-and
they do-it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public
intellectuals work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re
hearing things worth talking about.”
Now that the term public intellectual is defined, how does it relate
to us now in America? Do we have a history of this public discourse being
guided by intelligent and thoughtful citizens? And what does the current scene
of public intellectuals currently consist of?
Arguably the role of the public intellectual in the construction
of our country lies somewhere between a critical and a necessary component
without which, we might still be British citizens or a plethora of separate
entities living on the same continent. Thomas Paine, James Madison, and others all
played this critical role of public intellectual in the beginning of the great
experiment, which came to be known as America. Now this role has left the hands
of a few articulate men and is currently dominated by a wide range of men and
women from all different backgrounds and ages. One particularly interesting
person to focus on today is a fellow Millennial, named Ezra Klein.
This 21stcentury public intellectual did not plan on becoming a member of
this historical association, but instead stumbled into the role with the help of the
internet. Klein was born on May 9th, 1984. He first attended
University of California at Santa Cruz before deciding to transfer and complete
his degree at University of California at Los Angeles. When attending UCLA,
Klein recalls that his application to write for the university’s daily
newspaper, the Daily Bruin, was rejected. Instead of accepting his writing
career as over, he pushed forward into the new frontier, and arguably, the new
medium of the public intellectual. The internet, and blogging specifically,
removed the high barriers of entry to an aspiring pubic intellectual. The
necessity of first achieving vast name recognition and publishing volumes of
book were systematically dismantled by the introduction of the blogosphere.
Anyone who was willing to tackle tough issues and stack wood under the fire of
current debate topics would have a chance at ascending the ladder into the
position of public intellectual.
Although the internet does provide perhaps one of the last
remaining arenas of true equality, it also does present the issue of the
conversation being watered down by the sheer number of opinions that are able
to weigh in on every issue. In Ezra Klein’s case his ability to thoughtfully
deconstruct complex issues and present them to the public in a concise manner
does provide a public good, but he is also only 30. Perhaps the celebratory
trumpet has been sounded to early in his case? Is it not worth wondering that
his self-constructed platform is perhaps too powerful? Furthermore, what makes
him necessarily right in his writing or his actions? All are good questions
worth considering, but to counter them one must also ask, are any of those aforementioned inquiries even relevant?
Again to quoteProfessor Mack, “…the public
intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better
position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed
with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield
social or political power. It is only because learning the process of criticism
and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual
employment."
In
short, public intellectuals should be willing to say the things that need to be
said. They, like the Supreme Court at times, function as a safety valve on
society. The politics of legislating consistently dampen the ability to be forthright
with the American public. This inhibits most politicians’ ability to be viewed
as non-political observers even as hard as they try. The public intellectual
fills this void of trust by voicing criticism on policy that is not being
drafted, and also policy that was written with allegedly invidious intentions.
However, to truly maintain the title of public intellectual, he or she at times
has to rise above their ideological perspective and view the issues from an
objective standpoint. At face value this talent could be construed as a necessity to
an all-encompassing democratic conversation. However, one might argue that this
objective perspective might do greater harm in the long run for the
conversation and country as a whole.
An
example of Ezra Klein attempting to perform the balancing act of being a
progressive supporter of liberal policy and remaining true to his objective
views as a public intellectual were highlighted in the recent rollout of the
Affordable Healthcare Act. As most know, the initial implementation of the
healthcare act was rocky to say the least. Most of the problems were the result
of the online market systems being unable to process even small numbers of
customers, and also the website as a whole was slow, unresponsive, and
unreliable. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence of citizens attempting to
purchase new affordable healthcare; the very system which was advertised as
their medical salvation could in fact not perform even the basic tasks of a
website. Klein observed all of this from his blogging platform and spoke out on
it. Bear in mind that his liberal ideology is no secret, so his comments tested
the limits of where progressive supporter ends and political intellectual
begins. Klein wrote,
"In the months before the launch almost every senior member of
the Obama administration had a little calendar board tacked up in a prominent
spot in their office. "75 days until Obamacare" it would say. The
next morning they would tear off the page. "74 days until Obamacare"
it would say. The message -- to them and to their visitors -- was clear: This
was the White House's top priority.
We're now negative 14 days until the Affordable Care Act and
most people still can't purchase insurance. The magnitude of this failure is
stunning. Yes, the federal health-care law is a complicated project, government it rules are a mess, and the scrutiny has been overwhelming. But the Obama
administration knew all that going in. They should've been able to build an
online portal that works."
All
to clearly Klein had voiced his objections too the roll out thus far. But in the
long run, would not showing restraint in his scathing criticism be in the best
interest of his chosen political leanings? Could he have merely commented that
the rollout was not going as planned, and that was to be expected when
introducing a new large and complex federal program? Had this been the chosen
route, he would have addressed the problems, but would not have kept the “pot
boiling” so to speak.If he did
show deference to the “bigger picture” would he then be rejecting his
responsibility as a public intellectual whose job is to criticize? Or is the
bigger picture the continuation of a tradition that allows public intellectuals
to criticize non-discriminately for the greater good?
Joan Walsh, a fellow liberal and respected blogger, identified
these conflicting interests displayed by Klein and commented on them
herself. She wrote,
"Don’t get me wrong: The problems with Healthcare.gov are real, and
disturbing, and must be fixed asap. (Think Progress has a dispassionate
assessment here.) But excuse me if
I believe the president knows that without my telling him. It’s like watching
the 21st century version of the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council, and
I feel the way I did back then: On the one hand, yes, it’s important for
Democrats to acknowledge when government screws up, and to fix it.
On the other hand, when
liberals rush conscientiously to do that, they only encourage the completely
unbalanced and unhinged coverage of whatever the problem may be."
Walsh’s view here seems to suggest that when an individual
is in a position to voice public concern, that he or she might resist the
temptation to in recognition that their actions could cause more harm than good
from a political perspective.
However, pursuant to the accepted definition of a public
intellectual, any actions less than criticism, as displayed by Klein, would be
in direct contrast to his higher responsibilities. Loyalty to an ideology must
be submissive to the loyalty of honest public debate when fulfilling the role
of a public intellectual.
This example is illustrative of the public service an intellectual
can bring to society. Klein’s decision to focus on the flaws of the healthcare
roll out does not hurt the law. In fact, his criticism only helps ensure the
success of this legislation because his writing will bring about a focused
correction-driven response. If Klein had not kept putting gasoline on the fire
perhaps less attention would have been paid to the problem. Due to his chosen
liberal ideology his criticism can be viewed as an honest, non-partisan, critique
of the roll out.
Public intellectuals will continue
to play a positive role in society. Their service is an essential component of
a self-governing democratic country. An article by David Palumbo-liu,
titled, The Public Intellectual as
Provocateur, highlighted an
interesting benefit of the internet that promotes the discussions between vast
amounts of people. David
wrote,
"The
internet links people and their ideas in unprecedented ways. The question as
the critic Howard Rheingold put it, is not only how we use this capacity
smartly, but also why we should: If we combine our individual efforts
wisely, enough of the right know-how could add up to a more thoughtful society
as well as enhance those individuals who master digital network skills. Web 2.0
impresario Tim O’Reilly claims that the secret sauce behind Google, Wikipedia,
and the Web itself is the “architecture of participation”, enabling countless
small acts of self-interest like publishing a web page or sharing a link to add
up to a public good that enriches everybody."
As
this passage illustrates, the public intellectual is not a role commanded by
only a few men. It is now a societal responsibility and the internet provides
each and every person to thoughtfully weigh in on the current issues. This new
acceptance of diverse opinion, thoughts, and analysis does not necessarily
lessen the importance of the public intellectual, but instead it spreads the
weight of responsibility around. Each person is entitled to the megaphone of
the internet to use however he or she likes. While in many instances people
will simply keep their headphones plugged in and ignore the periphery noises,
occasionally an individual, with a thoughtful message, will break through. Ezra
Klein is an example of one of these outliers making their way in. The public
intellectual is anybody and also nobody. It is everyone and also just someone.
Journalists and academics no longer monopolize the medium that historically broadcasted the
public conversation. It is open to any and all who want to use it. This is
only beneficial to the greater good of society, and I for one am proud of a
fellow millennial grabbing his megaphone, throwing gas on the fire, and keeping
the debate moving forward.
