observations – The Autoclast

Juré

I had jury duty recently, in New York State Supreme Court, based on my residency in Manhattan. I had postponed earlier in the year because of some other commitments, so I had to go. I’m staying with David while I get my apartment remodeled, so this meant driving in to the city to park in my garage, then taking the subway downtown to 100 Centre Street.

I don’t mind jury duty, as inconvenient as it is. It’s a civic duty, and whatever the flaws of our justice system, the notion of judgement by fellow citizens is overall a positive one, in my opinion. Yes, jurors may be challenged and dismissed, and in some cases juries are formed in unfair and impartial ways, but the idea of a jury, at its most ideal, is a sound one for participatory democracy.

The building at 100 Centre is an old one, and a large one, home to both New York State Supreme Court as well as New York Criminal Court. I was surprised at how for north it was; exiting the Q train station at Canal street, I walked a few minutes and there it was.

It was easy to walk into the wrong entrance; on the north end, west side, I was told to go back out and come in farther south; this was a mistake I would make again coming back from lunch. The proper entrance had doors each for employees and the public. The only difference was that on entry, you either walked right in or walked to a security checkpoint.

Phone, watch, coins, keys, anything with metal went through the belt-fed scanner, with humans going through a frame scanner, followed at times by a wand-down. Then, up to the fifteenth floor for the jury room.

I had arrived quite a bit early, mostly to avoid traffic. When the appointed hour came, the jury administrator explained the paperwork and played a couple of videos on how juries work, including one on implicit bias; I thought this was a good addition, though I can imagine most people tuning it out.

By that point it ten in the morning, and we basically just sat for two hours waiting to be called. We would be given a lengthy lunch, and by half past three, we were informed we could go home. No cases were called, and we were all considered to have discharged our duty.

It might be strange to say, but walking in such an old building, it’s hard not to feel a sense of ongping-ness, to think about our justice system, flaws and all. There are lengthy glories to justice chiseled in stone on the outside, and plenty of homages to the ideals of justice inside, juxtaposed with more mundane signage of which way to go for this court or that, for arraignments, for the cafeteria (this was reduced to a place selling muffins and coffee, cash only).

More to the point, in riding the subway, walking to a municipal building, I felt a connection to my longtime home that I had not for a while; the subways were full again, and my fellow jurors and I all rejoiced at the news of our early release. Suffering together, that is a key aspect of living in a large city. We’re all strangers, sharing a moment.

When Markets Collide

When the market of ideas meets the market of government, what’s a free marketeer to do?

Two interesting headlines in the New York Times (NYT) today. I know, you serious business people and government wonks don’t get your fix there, but still, of interest: the Supreme Court allows greenhouse cost estimates to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when assessing the harms from emissions, and various states openly threaten Blackrock and other investment funds to back off supporting “woke” causes.

In the first story, essentially the EPA has had since the Obama administration, with an interlude during Trump’s, an interagency working group that created a framework to determine the costs of greenhouse emissions. That is, the cost to people, their communities, not the literal cost companies pay to emit greenhouse gases. Basically, when determining damages, or potential damages, there is a model to use for assessing the cost of the impact emissions had. Louisiana, along with other states, sued to block this.

The ruling isn’t a full endorsement. Basically it says, “the basic idea is sound and you can’t complain without an actual example to point at.” The door is open to states to object down the line to specific applications of this framework, so it’s not done and dusted yet. If an energy company applied to build a new refinery, and the EPA used this formula in their assessment of the impact, Louisiana could sue to block in that case alone. However, the general idea is sound, says SCOTUS.

In the other case, states similarly invested in fossil fuels and conservative politics have, in various ways, threatened financial investment companies for supporting causes the states do not like. For example, Texas has a law that prevents their retirement funds from doing business with companies that boycott fossil fuels, at least according to the state comptroller. Additionally, Utah and Idaho have kvetched about Standard & Poors using environmental factors when evaluating how creditworthy a state is. A hypothetical might run like this: a state that is cash-rich because they’ve gone all-in on reaping oil and coal from the ground, with no regulations on waste or emissions related to same, might not have the credit rating that a similarly rich state with pristine air and water might have.

To the first case, we have the power of government, along the lines of Congress having delegated rule-making expertise to the agency that might know what it’s talking about, saying that penalties will be measured in part according to damage from emissions. You have to do a better job of not building sludge factories next to high schools, my dear sovereign states.

In the second, we have private companies, wealth managers and the like, in some ways instigating but in other ways reacting to the idea that investments should be “clean”. There are some investors who want the peace of mind that comes from knowing their money is not tied to industries they do not support. In some cases, leaders of these wealth management funds have said, “we’re not going to invest in that” and keep on making money anyway. That’s the market. Bets are placed, winnings are collected, losses are left on the table.

Having studied finance and sat on a board or two with investments, I will repeat the common wisdom against so-called socially responsible investing, without advocating that wisdom. Generally the idea is that you should invest for max money, and then use that money to support the causes you like, rather than not invest in a wealth-generating asset class. I say, do whatever you want, and if that means avoiding fossil fuels, or companies with products or policies you do no support, fine. What’s curious to me is that rather than advocating for people to invest in these asset classes, states are seeking to punish wealth managers and other financial services companies.

That, as I think about it, is the current prevailing mood in conservative thought: punish, not reward. Which, by-the-by, is not an effective way to train people, or pets for that matter. Punishment may have a short-term positive effect: stop doing what you’re doing. However, it does not have long-term positive effects; it curtails free thinking, it stifles innovation. If you – a person, or an organization – are afraid to try something new because you were punished the last time you tried something new, you’ll become risk-averse, and less likely to grow and develop – as a person, as an organization, or as a whole economy.

This is not a sufficient outcome for the states. They want to punish companies for taking positions – bets – that they do not support. It’s not necessarily limited to the environment; they may not like whatever they see as “woke” causes, a phrase which is trending in conservative brains as shorthand for, “a thing I do not like”. I for one consider cold coffee to be woke. Coffee was meant to be served hot.

Anyway. What happened to freedom of speech, or markets, or whatever? Is this not an attempt at “cancel culture” in reverse? Thrashing for embargoes to stop the Evil Corporations from doing things you disagree with? It sounds like nothing so much as my middle school history teaching talking about boycotting of Nestle for their business in Apartheid-era South Africa.

Renaming History

“Man at the Community Board meeting wants to rename Fort Tryon Park,” said the Engineer.

“To what? Did he offer any other names to ‘try on’?” The Musician scooped up butter for his toast, and they settled down around the table.

“That is silly,” said Madame. “It has always been Fort Tryon Park.”

“That’s what the woman from Parks said. Fort Tryon Park. So named since the Revolution.” The Engineer carefully sliced his eggs open, to let the runny bits spill out. “But he opposed it since that was the name of the English governor at that time. Said the man tried to kidnap George Washington himself. Rather, he hired or ordered men to attempt that.”

“Sounds like he was just doing his job,” said the Musician.

“Well that’s what I thought. But also apparently the governor was considered cruel even by his own people.”

“The British?”

“Presumably so. All up and down the East Coast. He was governor of North Carolina before that.”

“Perhaps it is not so terrible an idea,” said Madame. “I mean, it is strange to keep a park named after an opposing side’s leader. Especially since everything else around here is named after George Washington.”

“Every melody has its counter,” said the Musician.

“I feel things should maintain their history no matter how ignoble. And, in any case, the woman from Parks said even the Americans back then called it Fort Tryon. Even though it was originally part of the Fort Washington defenses, after the Americans were defeated, it was renamed Fort Tryon and after the war no one bothered to rename it.”

“How strange,” said Madame.

“After that, it was essentially private property until the Rockefellers gave it to the city and it became the park it is today.”

“It occurs to me,” said the Musician, “that perhaps there is wisdom in keeping the name as it is. Would we even be talking about this Tryon man if not for the name of the park?”

“We could name it after Margaret Corbin,” said Madame. “She was the wife of an American solider who took his place on the line when he was injured. She only has the road named after her. Margeret Corbin Drive.”

“Now that is an idea I could get behind,” said the Engineer. “But the bigger question is, do we bother honoring our enemies, at least those we defeated? The British won the battle and renamed the fort, but lost the war. Perhaps little informational signs in the park.”

“I do not know. I only go there for the flower garden. And the view.” Madame sighed as she sipped her coffee.

Forbearing Witness

I received a handwritten letter the other day from a Jehovah’s Witness. From the envelope, the purpose and contents were unclear; the return address as well as mine were handwritten. Of course, the return address is a JW hall in Harlem, approximately thirty blocks south.

It’s a friendly letter, succinct and to the point. Important information to share, and our work is not commercial. There’s an expression of hope someday soon I will be able to speak to it personally.

Perhaps this is how Jehovah’s Witnesses solicit in an urban environment? I’m more familiar with them going door to door; that happened to me in college, as well as to a friend around that time. In a city full of apartment buildings, though, access to front doors of homes is challenging, and in some cases might result in legal action. So, I suppose writing letters makes sense, and the handwritten approach certainly caught my attention in a way that a mass flyer would not.

Yet, I’m wondering: how did they get my mailing address? It is addressed to me by name, not “resident” or something similarly generic. Certainly, in this age of information processing, innumerable sources of mailing addresses are available, but just how did they come by my information? Was this a one-time transcription or is there a database owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

I don’t know very much about their theology, other than that they don’t celebrate birthdays or several other holidays, including those based in mainstream Christian traditions. I take that they’re a more austere sect, and from the pamphlets are focused on bible study.

Keeping the Beaches Free of Shipwrecks

I had occasion to fly American Airlines recently. Like all airlines, they’ve worked hard to make their pre-flight safety briefings entertaining and engaging.

Here’s American’s current version, courtesy of YouTube.

I found myself mesmerized by arms swaying in the tracking shots, and the disembodied hands helping buckle the seat were amusing.

This reminded me of nothing so much as an old They Might Be Giants music video.

Same director? Or inter-generational influence.