Climate Change

How harmful is the current, uncommon rate of increase of global temperature? I ask not to cast doubt on whether it can ever be harmful, for surely it can. But unless we know how harmful and when, how can we know the disease is worse than the cure?

I ask because global temperature has risen about two thirds of a degree Celsius since 1900, only about half of which is attributable to mankind's actions (previous to 1950 or so, solar irradiance best explained global temperature). I cannot think of a hypothetical situation wherein less than a degree of ambient temperature could make a significant difference to anything, even if the change had occurred instantly.

This thought occurred to me while rereading this rebuttal to the climate skepticism argument that a warmer world could be better, part of a larger (and very well-written and reasonable) series entitled How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic. In this particular rebuttal, he argues quite reasonably that it is the rate of change, not the resulting temperature, that puts the ecosystem at risk.

I am reminded of driving a car. You can go extremely fast in a car, but you don't suffer the consequences until you crash. The rapid acceleration of crashing is entirely out of proportion with anything a car can achieve otherwise. 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds, then 60 to 0 in a few hundredths. By analogy, current global temperature change is a car crash.

However, with car accidents there have been extensive studies into what G-forces for what durations cause what harm. We know what safety features to advocate (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc) because we have measured their effects and optimized their design. The prescriptions provided for global temperature control are not based on careful measure and experiment, but are based solely on preventing what is already happening. This "Anything but this!" mentality is just as destructive as the head-in-the-sand, "Global warming is a conspiracy!" mentality. There are always worse things than this, whatever "this" could possibly be, and we cannot currently be responsibly confident our prescribed solutions are not among those worse things. Not while the costs both of the disease and the cure remain widely unknown.

That same advocate of climate change danger, Coby, mentions that the Great Dying, the most complete mass extinction in geologic history, is thought to have been caused by rapid climate change 250 million years ago. The Great Dying took place over about a million years. Even if the modern global temperature increase has something in common with that ancient one, there's certainly no reason to believe the current temperature increase is many thousands of times times faster than back then; it's not even significantly faster than the 1900-1950 solar-forced warming, which presumably occurred rather similarly 250 million years ago. By that comparison, we have half a million years or so to correct the global temperature increase we're now seeing. Perhaps 10,000 years if we want to nip this in the bud right away.

I'm not comforted by that bad reasoning, but I'm certainly not frightened by the bogeyman of a modern mass extinction event. I believe that science is giving us increasing awareness of the changes we induce on our planet, but we seem superstitiously afraid of those changes. Not everything artificial is the end of the world, despite the Green Party's press releases.

Perhaps we do need to act dramatically and now to stop global warming, but despite my repeated perusal of various climate change action advocates' arguments and sources I have yet to see what and why and how much. Whatever governmental policy you prescribe, inaction included, there has to be a reason for it. That's the weak point in the debate, not the science.

Citizenship

"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
- Joseph Smith, D&C 134:2

What is the proper relationship between a man and his country? What duties and entitlements does each properly attain from the other?

A nation cannot be properly governed unless it's government has the consent of it's citizens. Democratic elections allow a nation to demonstrate that consent, but an honorable Monarch, Emperor, or other Head of State can possess that same consent without a democratic demonstration of it so long as that Head of State acts in the interest of the citizenry and allows them a strong freedom of conscience and self-determination.

A nation's government has a duty to mediate disputes and enforce civil treatment of it's citizens, one to another. It's citizens are entitled to the amount of health they possess, free from violent attack; to the amount of property they possess, free from theft and vandalism; and to the consequences of their own actions rather than those of their tribesmen, clan, family, creed, neighbors or race.

A government that protects it's citizens' body, property, and freedom of conscience is, in turn, entitled to it's citizens' obedience; for how else can a nation ensure life, liberty, and property than by it's laws, institutions, and officials?

Each citizen has a duty to preserve the laws, institutions, and officials of the government that holds his consent. He demonstrates that consent by obeying it's laws generally; by studying it's operation and opining as to it's effectiveness and validity; by upholding it's officers and institutions and, if capable, offering his services as one of them. To be a juror, soldier, peace officer, voter, election officer, taxpayer, government official, or political advocate is an expression of that consent.

A government that makes it's citizens' safety or prosperity dependent on it's own continued power is ensuring for itself the ability to contradict it's citizens' consent. Whether or not the government intends to use that ability, it is an unacceptable power for it to hold.

A government that makes the freedom of it's citizens conditional on wealth, political connections, religious membership, or other demographic criteria is neither free nor safe. By breaking the trust of it's own people it loses their consent and it's own validity.

A citizen that attacks another in person, in property, or in freedom is entitled to trial and sentencing, including reductions in his own property and freedom. Such a citizen has breached the trust of his government, making it his government's duty to restrain him in reasonable proportion to that breach. Thus the government fulfills it's duty to establish order and protect the people who maintain entitlement to it's protection.

A citizen that seeks to destroy a just government is a traitor. A government that possesses the consent of it's citizenry generally is entitled to protect itself even to the destruction of it's traitorous attacker so long as, in doing so, it maintains the consent of the general citizenry. A government that does not possess the consent of it's citizenry generally loses this entitlement and deserves the institutional destruction intended by such attackers. In that case, the traitor to government is a champion of the citizenry, holding their consent better than the government he seeks to destroy.

May we all be good citizens of good governments.

Arizona's Immigration Bill

The complete text of Arizona's strict new immigration law, AZ Senate Bill 1070, is available here, in pdf format. It is in 12 sections, the last of which indicates the title of the bill to be "the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." The following summary of it's contents does not include any subsequent amendments; it is only a summary as the bill as originally passed and signed.

1. Intent - states that the bill is intended to unify immigration enforcement across federal, state, and local jurisdictions and to fight illegal immigration.
2. Enforcement - amends state law to provide that:
   1. Sanctuary cities and other inconsistent immigration enforcement within Arizona is banned.
   2. AZ state cops will make "a reasonable attempt" to verify citizenship status "where reasonable suspicion exists" and "when practicable" "for any lawful contact." [see definitions]
   3. If an illegal immigrant convicted of any state or local crime is to be turned over to ICE (Immigration, The Feds).
   4. Unless banned by some other law, AZ police "may securely transport" illegal aliens to Federal custody.
   5. State cops "may" arrest any individual if there is "probable cause" of some deportable offense without a warrant. [see definitions]
   6. Unless banned by federal law, state officials or agencies cannot be prohibited from handling immigration status information to determine eligibility for public services, licensing, determining residence, confirming a detainee's identity, or determining compliance with federal immigration law.
   7. State and local agencies that adopts a policy of immigration non-enforcement can have that policy challenged by anyone in state superior court. Punishments, at the court's discretion, may include paying for the trial costs and/or a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 per day.
   8. Money collected from such fines pays for the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIT EM), a state law enforcement agency.
   9. If an officer was just following orders in breaking this law, the punishment goes to his agency.
   10. Enforcement of this law must comply with federal law, especially civil rights and due process laws.
3. Trespassing - amends state law to provide that:
   1. Illegal aliens on public property are trespassing.
   2. Immigration status is to be verified by the feds in these cases.
   3. Those sentenced for this crime must stay constantly in custody until the sentence is served.
   4. They are also to be fined at least $500 for a first offense and double that for subsequent offenses.
   5. This money goes to GIT EM and to reimburse county jails for immigration enforcement costs.
   6. This counts as a Class 1 Misdemeanor, except:
      1. It's a Class 3 Felony if they had drugs, deadly weapons, or tools of terrorism in their possession at the time.
      2. It's a Class 4 Felony for a second offense or if the USA has deported them in the past 60 days.
4. Smuggling - A section E is added to state human smuggling laws stating that "any peace officer may" stop any vehicle if they have "reasonable suspicion" they are disobeying civil traffic laws while smuggling humans. [see definitions]
5. Solicitation for Employment & Harboring Aliens - makes it a Class 1 Misdemeanor to obstruct traffic in order to recruit day workers, or for people legally ineligible to work in the United States to solicit employment. Also, makes it a criminal offense to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or encourage illegal aliens to move to Arizona. Vehicles used to illegally transport illegal aliens must be impounded. It's a Class 1 Misdemeanor and at least a $1,000 fine, unless it's 10 or more aliens at once in which case it's a Class 6 Felony and at least $1,000 per person.
6. Employing Illegals - the AZ state laws making it illegal to employ illegal aliens are amended to include a means for employers to claim law enforcement tricked them into it (entrapment), with the burden of proof on the employers.
7. Employing Illegals Again - same as Section 6, but for a different version of the same law (Section 23-212 vs. Section 23-212.01). I don't know why Arizona law includes the same text twice, but the fact that it does required them to amend it twice.
8. Verifying Employment Eligibility - the AZ state law requiring employers to verify the employment status of new employees is amended to require the employer to keep those employment status records for the full term of employment or three years, whichever is longer.
9. Impoundment of Vehicles - amended to list harboring or transporting of illegal immigrants as a valid reason to impound a vehicle.
10. GIT EM - establishes Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team and Enforcement Mission as a state government agency that manages immigration enforcement funds.
11. Procedural Details - this law is intended to obey all federal laws, but if any part of it is found inconsistent with federal law the inconsistency of that part will not be construed to affect the rest of the law.
12. Names the bill the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. What's that acronym, SOLE-SNA? SOLE-Safe? It's kinda awkward, and sounds isolationist.

Definitions

GIT EM

Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team and Enforcement Mission, the Arizona state agency established by this bill to handle the funding and finances of the new expense of this new state-level enforcement of federal immigration law.

ICE

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the US Federal Government's immigration agency. Formerly the INS; Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Lawful Contact

This bill is famous for coining the term "lawful contact," since it didn't strictly have a definition before. It generally means "the kind of contact cops have with folks through official business", but Arizona had to pass another law defining the term more strictly in the face of public criticism of it's ambiguity. The amended version calls it "a lawful stop, detention or arrest." More on that when I cover the amendments in a later post.

May

If you may do something, you have permission but no mandate or requirement to. It's an option available to you, if you so choose.

Peace Officer

General term for any officer of any law enforcement agency, including police officers, parole officers, customs officers, court officers, corrections officers, etc.

Probable Cause

The amount of proof needed for police to arrest a suspect or for a judge to issue a warrant.

Reasonable Attempt

To make a reasonable attempt is to try but resist being fanatical about it. If it's not doable, fine. Move on to something else. "Reasonable" in the legal sense has it's basis in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. However, the phrase "reasonable attempt" is in the common vernacular, not legalese.

Reasonable Suspicion

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Reasonable suspicion is a legal term for the standard of proof necessary for a search or seizure to be allowable by the 4th Amendment, meaning that the cop must be able to articulate facts in court to defend his decision to conduct the search or seizure. It can't just be a hunch. [source]

Standards of Proof

Hunch

You think something is up, but you can't explain why. This is enough evidence to alter individual behavior, but is insufficient for any legal action.

Reasonable Suspicion

Enough evidence that you can explain why you are suspicious and most folks will agree that it looks suspicious. This is enough evidence for a police officer to conduct an impromptu search, such as frisking a suspect or pulling a car over, but not necessarily enough to enter a residence without the owner's permission or to arrest anyone.

Probable Cause

Enough evidence to be reasonably confident the suspect committed the crime. This is enough evidence for a cop to arrest a suspect, or for a judge to issue a search warrant. It's one of two requirements for a cop to enter a residence without permission (the other being exigent circumstances; it has to be an emergency of human health or life or the survival of evidence). It is not necessarily enough evidence to convict.

Without a Shadow of a Doubt

The evidence so obviously proves the claim that one cannot doubt it; it's clearly true. This is the standard of evidence for conviction of a crime.

The primary criticism of the bill is that allowing any peace officer with any reasonable reasonable suspicion of lapsed immigration status permission to investigate (by, say, asking for state ID) at any time qualifying under the vague condition of "lawful contact" lends itself to civil rights abuses both of immigrants and of Hispanics and other minorities likely to be suspected of illegal immigration. The rebuttal is that the "reasonable suspicion" must be articulable in court without any mention of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as a determination made on those grounds would constitute discrimination by federal law and, thus, are explicitly excluded by Section 2-J of the bill.

Another criticism is that it mandates officers to check immigration status. In rebuttal, the word "may" is used 19 times in the bill and it mandates agencies to allow their officers to check immigration status if they so choose, whereas only one section (2-B) requires an officer to do anything. Even then, what constitutes "reasonable suspicion", "a reasonable attempt", and what is "practicable" are, by practical necessity, left to the officer's personal judgment to varying degrees.

Another criticism is that it doesn't change the law enough to make any relevant change to Arizona's culture, as intended. Personally, I think establishing a new state agency, defining two or three new crimes, and synchronizing federal, state, and local enforcement is a substantial change and there will probably be some effect (even if it's just pushing illegal immigrants into neighboring states). I suppose the content of the amendments and the results of the backlash must be taken into account before I can be completely certain, though.

StarCraft 2

I finally played my first game of the StarCraft 2 beta. It's one of the few modern video games I care anything about, having so loved the original and not having yet seen a Blizzard game that was not fantastic.

StarCraft 2 is fantastic all over again. It's much like the original, except optimized. They've managed to create a greater diversity of tactical possibilities with fewer, more interesting units, fewer upgrades, and some new terrain tricks and control options. Very nice game design.

I managed to win my first game, 1 Protoss vs. 1 Protoss, but not by some great skill on my behalf. The opponent (a random internet stranger) had me beat completely early on, but failed to follow through. By creating a trap or two, and creating a few new towns he didn't know about, I was able to get back into competition without his knowledge and surprise him with a formidable force just as he ran out of resources.

It's a dang fun game.

Food Silliness

I decided on an unusual dinner last night: a mashed potato buffet. Four kinds of mashed potatoes, three kinds of gravy. The turkey gravy on cream of mushroom potatoes was the best.

Variety is the spice of life.

Searching...

Google can't search for what I really need: happiness, meaning, success.