the most difficult presidential decision

Newsweek (September 15, 2008, p. 17) quotes Laura Bush as saying "Of course we talk about it, and that is by far the most difficult decision the president ever makes -- to send our troops into harm's way". Now, what I'm about to say is in no way specific to Laura Bush since presidents and other politicians (especially her husband) say this sort of thing all the time. But it's just a load of crap. Yes, sending troops somewhere to engage in some kind of military action almost always involves putting them in harm's way. But the fact that they are soldiers and they are being put in harm's way in no way (unless you are an idiot) thereby makes it the toughest decision for you as president. First, consistent with all of that, it could be a very easy decision, if the reasons (or least perceived reasons) for engaging in such military action are quite strong and/or the risk of harm to soldiers is fairly slight. For a hypothetical example, if failure to take some kind of military action against evil Dr. Nefarious would result in his army of robots plundering our homeland, then (especially if we know about a secret self-destruct mechanism on the robots which makes possible a very non-risky marine mission to take them all out in one fell swoop) choosing military action is in fact very easy. For a real example, I'll bet it was not at all hard for Bush I, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to decide on the military action that amounted to the Persian Gulf War. Second, a decision whether or not to send soldiers into harm's way is far from the only decision a president makes which will affect who lives and who dies (or even just who is harmed in a non-fatal way and who is not), even on the part of US citizens. The most obvious example is the decisions a president makes regarding health care. But once you think about it, EVERY important decision a president makes is of this sort, including decisions about education, the economy, the environment, workplace safety, automobile safety, affirmative action, taxation, corporate welfare, service-provider liability, and so on.

In fact, it's especially irritating when a conservative (such as Laura Bush or her husband) says something like this (about sending troops into harm's way being the most difficult decision to make). In almost any other domain, conservatives go off on how people should pay the price of their choices. For example, almost any conservative would say that, if someone decides to buy an Xbox 360 rather than health insurance, then they are voluntarily choosing a certain gamble, and if they get sick or injured in the absence of health insurance, well then the government shouldn't have to do anything about it. But what is a soldier? A soldier is someone who, in exchange for a salary, commits him or herself to doing various things, importantly including things which involve being put in harm's way, i.e., someone who voluntarily chooses a certain gamble. So how is it not a double standard when the conservative says what Laura Bush said, rather than the exact opposite, something like: "I have no qualms about sending soldiers into harm's way. They chose to be soldiers - they chose, in exchange for a salary, the gamble with health and life that is involved in being a soldier - so no big deal if and when some get hurt".

Of course, if someone chooses to do something in an unjust context, then even a conservative can consistently let him or her off the hook. For example, if I choose to cut off my left foot in the unjust context wherein someone is going to shoot me unless I cut off my left foot, then the conservative can consistently say something like: "well that sucks, the government should help you out even though you chose to cut off your left foot, GIVEN THE UNJUST CIRCUMSTANCES". The reason this is relevant here is that, if someone chooses to be a soldier only because, in the context of unjust economic circumstances, that's the only way he or she can make money, then even the conservative can consistently refrain from saying: "too bad, you chose that gamble". But here's the punchline: it's exactly THE CONSERVATIVE WHO WANTS TO DENY THAT THERE ARE ANY DEEP IN JUSTICES IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE US. So the conservative does NOT have this way out (the way out which involves noting the choice in question was in the context of unjust circumstances), and so it would seem the conservative DOES have a DOUBLE STANDARD in saying "too bad for the guy who buys an Xbox 360 rather than health care", but not saying "too bad for the guy who chooses to be a soldier rather than something else".

To be clear, I AM NOT ENDORSING the view which amounts to saying "too bad for the soldier". The point here is that, in not saying this, THE CONSERVATIVE IS BEING INCONSISTENT.

comparative approaches to solving social problems

I just bought this book Solutions to Social Problems: Lessons from Other Societies by D. Stanley Eitzen and Craig S. Leedham (both at Colorado State University at the time of publication - 1998). What I find interesting about this is that including "Lessons from Other Societies" as a subtitle would mark the book as distinctive when it comes to books about how to solve social problems. One would think that a book on social problems even remotely worth its salt would pay careful attention to the relevant empirical evidence, which includes the results of various attempts to solve various kinds of social problems from other societies. But, as a matter of fact, that is not the case. (So this is a dig not at this book and their authors, but rather at the approach taken by others to social problems such that it made sense for them to include this is a subtitle.) Sadly, there seems to be a terrible dearth of attention to empirical evidence and those with actual empirical and issue-specific expertise when it comes to social policies aimed at alleviating social problems, including (perhaps especially) presidential candidates. This was the main reason I was a fan of John Hagelin (Natural Law Party presidential candidate 1992, 1996 and 2000); he wanted to approach social problems very scientifically by paying attention to the best available empirical evidence and issue-specific expertise out there (and, further, he also had an extremely sharp intellect to offer by way of choosing in light of such - Hagelin is an extremely accomplished theoretical physicist and, to a lesser extent, practical engineer). As a presidential candidate, I intend to continue this theme of Hagelin's.

contacting me

E-mail preferred:
kierlandforprez@gmail.com

Snail mail also okay:
1309 Fall Ct.
Boise, Id 83706

the BSU website

I am new faculty (as of August 2008) at Boise State University, so if you browse their website looking for more information on me, you won't find much if anything at all. The BSU philosophy website is under reconstruction, the new version (as I understand it) to be available in the next month or so. Once it is, then you will at least be able to see me there. In case you would like to contact me at BSU, my BSU e-mail is: BrianKierland@BoiseState.edu .

committed voters

If you are committed to voting for me - say, right now you think there is at least an 80% chance that you will vote for me on Election Day - I'd appreciate hearing about it. This will help me gauge to what extent the campaign has picked up steam, and will let me know if I need to revise my vote goals (particularly in the upward direction). If you do let me know, I'd prefer that you do simply by commenting on this very post, anonymously or otherwise. I will not interpret any such comment or report of an intention to vote for me as a promise or commitment in any strict sense; if you change your mind, no moral worries.

volunteering

I welcome volunteers with open arms. Tasks I have available for volunteers include: creating and distributing flyers, signs, buttons, etc.; campaign calling and going door-to-door; fund-raising; investigating rules in all 50 states for officially counting write-in votes; proof-reading my blog entries; brainstorming; creating an additional campaign website, of more an eye-catching advertising sort than the informational sort of this blog. And I am sure I will think of more tasks for volunteers as time goes on.

donations

All donations would be greatly appreciated. (I am not independently wealthy; in fact, still not having sold my house in Missouri, where I used to teach, any money of my own that I spend on this campaign will simply take me further into debt.)

Given my limited resources and the small-scale nature of this campaign, I do not have any official campaign fund or the like. So I simply ask those interested in donating to send the money to me at my home address:

1309 Fall Ct.
Boise, ID 83706

I make a solemn promise to spend 100% of all campaign donations on the campaign, and since I will spend no campaign money paying individuals (including myself) for their time/effort/ideas, this will amount to 100% of all campaign donations being used to purchase things like ink, paper, paperboard, markers, stickers, buttons, etc. (If I succeed in establishing contacts in other states who will help with the campaign, some of this money might end up getting sent their way, but only for purposes of being spent in the same fashion.)