Never Forget. Never Again.

Today is Yom HaShoah: Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Nearly 6 million innocent lives extinguished for being Jews. Anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million of these lives were children.

These numbers are unfathomable. Each life a unique, unrepeatable point; an individual with hopes, fears, passions, and goals. These are gone forever. What was lost is unimaginable. The future achievements and accomplishments of each of these individuals lost to the gas chambers.

There are several memorials that represent this all too clearly. Two are at the US Holocaust Museum in DC. One is a sculpture of a huge pile of shoes. Lives discarded as a easily as one discards shoes. These personal items often all that was left of these lives.

The second is the memorial for a Jewish town wiped from the map. It's two stories of photographs of the town and its people. Pictures of weddings, parades, shops, friends, lovers. All gone, consumed by hate.

The last is the Children's Memorial at Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial and museum in Jerusalem. An underground structure, dark and cool. There are memorial candles and mirrors reflecting these candles. The effect is haunting. An infinity of tiny lights shining in this cold dark place. What brightness that could have come from these lives that we will never know?

An excellent resource: The Holocaust Wing of the Jewish Virtual Library

Never Forget. Never Again.

More on Roscoe Pet Ordinance

I thought it might be interesting to post the correspondence I had with one of the Roscoe Village Trustees regarding the proposed pet ordinance.

Here is the first response from Trustee Scott Richardson.

Our current ordinance limits the number of pets to 4 unless you have a kennel or multi pet license. The new ordinance was made to take care of people that don't take care of the animals they have. The ordinance address cats more then any other animal. We have made allowances for people that have ferral cats. People that live next to other people with numerous animals have a rights also and we have to take into account their feelings also and they don't want these animals in there yards going to the bathroom. We have had several meetings about this subject and have fashioned the ordinance to deal with the problem we are having.

Here is the response I sent back to Mr. Richardson.

Your response doesn't address any concerns and just reiterates to me the arbitrariness of this ordinance. The fact that some individuals don't take care of their animals is no basis for denying responsible individuals their liberty. If that is the concern, the ordinance should directly address that. A homeowner with one pet that is not taking care of responsibly raises all these same concerns. That is why the ordinance is arbitrary.

You wrote: "People that live next to other people with numerous animals have a rights also and we have to take into account their feelings" Well, no, we don't. That one feels a certain way about how many pets I might have is their problem; not mine or the villages. I might live next door to someone who has a motorcycle and I might not like that, but that doesn't give the village the authority to prevent my neighbor from having a motorcycle. Or maybe I don't like kids running around, and my neighbor has 5 kids. Should the village legislate no more than 4 kids? Or maybe I don't like Asian people, should we take account of my feelings then? According to the principle you have stated, the village would have that authority. Unless my pets are doing harm or posing a threat to my neighbor, his feelings don't count. Nor I should say, do mine. What should be the concern of the village government is the safety and protection of the residents; not their feelings.

Each resident certainly has rights--this is precisely my concern. The village is violating the rights of the residents by prohibiting, with no reasonable basis in the safety and protection of residents, an otherwise lawful action. That another doesn't like that lawful action is not a reasonable basis: such is the seed of tyranny.

Having rights means that others cannot interfere with one activities and property unless those activities or property are damaging another's activities or property. How does one owning five indoor, spayed cats effect anyone else? If I have dog that goes to the bathroom in some one else's yard, I should clean it up. Now if I don't, then that is a problem. I have interfered in their property and should be accountable for that. That is entirely reasonable, and I would have assumed that the village required that already.

My problem is not that the village wants to make sure that animals are being responsibly cared for and that residents aren't being unduly affected by the pets that others own. My problem is that village is going about this in an overly broad and arbitrary manner. Broad because the ordinance makes it illegal for anyone to have more than 4 pets, instead of focusing on the problem: those that have pets they don't take care of. And it is arbitrary because there is no connection between the number of pets and how responsible the owners are. Why 4? Why not 3 (as it was at first) Why not 5? There is no objective basis for making the choice.

It would be nice if the times, locations, and topics for the meetings were readily available, say on website or in a monthly or quarterly mailing to residents. The only reason I knew anything about this was the newspaper story.

I still urge the board to rewrite the ordinance in a more direct manner that deals directly with the problem of feral cats and irresponsible pet owners instead of enacting an ordinance that limits everyone.

Mr. Richardson sent me a copy of the proposed ordinance. And here is the response I sent after I read the ordinance.

My objection to 90.003(b) still stands. [The section regarding the limitation of the number of pets]

The purpose of the ordinance as stated is for the control and prevention of stray or feral animals and for the control and regulation of those breeding and selling/trading domestic animals. I don't necessarily agree that the village needs to do these things, but I am not here objecting to that. If there is a real health or safety issue, the village should be able to deal with that.

However, I strongly disagree with the implied assumption that a household with more than 4 pets is a household that is keeping animals to breed, sell, or trade. If that assumption is not being made than what is the basis for 90.003(b)?

Furthermore, the way the ordinance is written the total number includes not just cats and dogs but other pets, such as guinea pigs and birds. The Register Star reported that the ordinance cap would only apply to cats and dogs. If the cap includes all pets, than the number of 4 will be quite easy to go over. It is easy to imagine a home with two dogs and two cats, and then one of the children having a guinea pig (and these often are kept in pairs). Certainly this is not an example of a household intending to breed, sell, or trade.

So I still see no rational or objective basis for the number to be at 4.

Thanks to Mr. Richardson for, one, corresponding with me (no other trustee contacted me), and, two, for not objecting to my plan for posting this exchange.

Letter published

The Rockford Register Star published online my letter, an abbreviated version of my letter to the Village Board. I'll be checking the paper on Tuesday to see if it will be in the print edition as well.

Update 4/15/08: The letter was published in today's print edition as well. Yay me!

Roscoe Pet Ownership

The village of Roscoe is in the process of trying to pass an ordinance that would limit the number of pets a household could own. The following is a letter I sent the Village Trustees (A shorter version was submitted to the local paper).

As a resident of Roscoe, I write with great dismay and some anger at the ordinance regarding pet ownership. This ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonably broad in its scope, and ambiguous in its content.

The limit of four pets per household is arbitrary. There is no general link between the number of pets one has in one’s household to the health and safety of Roscoe residents. Merely adding a dog to home that has four pets already does not suddenly create a health hazard or safety risk to other residents.

There is, moreover, no connection between having more than four pets and one failing to take responsibility regarding that pet. A family could have two pets and fail to care for those pets responsibly and thus possibly create a health or safety risk for residents. While another family might have two dogs and three cats and take wonderful and loving care of these pets. On what reasonable basis does the Village take upon itself the authority to deprive these individuals of property that is posing no harm or danger to residents?

Residents who are responsible should not be punished for the irresponsibility of others. The board should craft an ordinance that empowers the village to deal appropriately with residents who create a nuisance by failing to take responsibility for their pets--regardless of how many they own. Such an ordinance should not interfere in the peaceful lives and homes of responsible residents.

I urge you to vote against this arbitrary, ambiguous, and unreasonable ordinance. It violates the liberty of law-abiding and responsible individuals.

Philosophy majors increasing

This New York Times article is making the rounds among those in the philosophy profession. Nationally, enrollments in philosophy are increasing. This is good news for the profession. I hope it translates into increased enrollments at Rockford as well.

The article speculates that the increase is in large part due to students' increasing awareness and curiosity with the ethics involved in things like the Iraq war, political scandals, technological advances, and the environment. No doubt that's a factor, but I am skeptical if this is what it is really about. Maybe these things get the students initial attention, but I think there are other important factors. Of course this is purely anecdotal and speculation.

Some of this might just be a pendulum swing from more trendy and career-focused majors to the broader, more traditional majors in humanities. Students wanted very specific majors that tied directly to a job/career upon graduating. Possibly, now they are looking for majors that teach broad-based, more universal intellectual skills: critical thinking and writing, effective communication, and the ability to understand and deal with ideas in general. These skills give one wider opportunities in the future; as opposed to the training in a specific skill that may become obsolete or outsourced.

One factor in this might be the realization that what is needed in the student's search for a career is adaptability and flexibility. This requires a more broad-based ability to think and reason; not just some particular job skills. Philosophy teaches one how to critically and analytically read a text; how to pick out the important ideas; how to understand the ways these ideas connect; and how to communicate this. These skills are effective if you are reading Aristotle or the CEO's annual corporate plan.

Philosophy, of course, is not the only major to teach these skills. Ideally, all BA majors do this, but specifically humanities majors are good at this. I think philosophy does this the best because it is often primarily focused on doing just this. You don't read Descartes to find out about how the mind actually works. You read it to understand what Descartes is doing; how does he get from point A and to point B. As such, philosophy is focused on the process; not so much the results. (This is not to say the results aren't important: they are the goal, the point of all the work, but philosophy as a discipline is focused on the question and the how of answering it. The answer is left for the philosopher himself to figure out.)

In my experience, the students who become philosophy majors fall into three groups (these are not mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive). The first group are the geeks--like myself--who just love to discuss ideas no matter the context. They will gravitate to a philosophy major because in philosophy there are really no restrictions about what can be talked about. (The restrictions are in the manner--reason and logic, not in the content.).

The second group are those that see philosophy as great training for law school. Philosophy majors, as a group, are almost always near the top of the listing of majors that do the best on the LSAT (and other standardized tests).

The third group are late-comers to philosophy. They've tried other majors--this might even be there second BA--and are dissatisfied. The other majors were filled with classes that involved just memorization or the uncritical employment of formulas. These courses usually just required them to return back to the professor what was said in class or the text. Now this might have been just bad teaching and not the disciplines themselves, but for these students, philosophy was like a breathe of fresh air. It challenged them, for the first time, to think about the world, about themselves, and about their ideas. It is as if they have been using a computer for years just as a word processor, but suddenly discover that it can connect to the internet.

I think it is the latter group that might be a large factor in the swelling of philosophy enrollments. Most students come out of 12 years of school that is more and more just about standardized exams. There are force-fed all kinds of content, with little in the way of integration or explanation of the importance of the content. They are largely not taught to think as such, just to absorb the content and then provide that content on the exams. This in reinforced by a wide-spread cultural relativism that views anything other than brute facts as one's opinion and not subject to evaluation or criticism.

Then they take a philosophy course. The teacher, annoyingly I'm sure, keeps asking them "Why do you believe that?" or "Why do you think that is the case?" Their usual responses of "That's just my opinion" or "That's the way I was brought up to believe" are no longer enough. Many don't care. Others suddenly start to wonder, why do I believe that? And a philosopher is born.

What if......?

I am reading an alternative history trilogy by Kirk Mitchell called The Germanicus Trilogy. The series is based on two counterfactuals: Pontius Pilate pardons Jesus and the Romans beat the Germans at Tuetoburg Forest in 9 C.E. With these two changed events, the Roman Empire does not fall. It Romanizes the German tribes, who get incorporated into and revitalize the legions over the centuries. And without the martydom of Jesus, there is no Christianity and so the intellectual culture of the empire doesn't become intolerant and dogmatic. This prevents the social breakdown that contributed to the fall of the empire.

The stories take place in, as far as I can tell, the 20th century. The Romans have some modern technology, but they are far behind us. They have trains, guns and just recently mastered electricity.They have only just started to settle in the Novo Provinces (North America). The Aztecs have a formidable empire in Central America. There is some mention of a Chinese Empire as well. It has it's flaws, but it is quite interesting and entertaining. I've just started the second book. The Romans are about to go to war with the Aztecs.

I am fascinated by alternative history -- though I think it is hard to pull off in fiction. After all, you need a good story line, not just a gimmick. Nonetheless, it is endlessly interesting to imagine how the world would be different if one particular moment in time was changed. (What if Reagan died after the assassination attempt? What if JFK, MLK, RFK didn't die? What if Churchill had been in power instead of Chamberlain? )

Sometimes important world events hinge on the most coincidental or accidental events, so it's not hard to see how the outcomes might have been different. During World War I, Hitler had one of the most dangerous positions as a messenger on the front. He would have been under enemy fire often. And he was seriously wounded twice, once in a mustard gas attack. What if Hitler had been killed instead of injured? The last 70 years are completely different. Might WW2 never have happened? Would that have meant no cold war? No nuclear weapons? No Holocaust? What kind of impact would the hundreds of millions of lives that would have had an opportunity to grow and flourish instead of being extinguished have had on the world?

Or would someone worse than Hitler arise and precipiate these events, maybe even on a larger scale? Might a different leader have guided the Germans to victory?

It is imponderable, which makes it so intriguing!

I have my own pet alternative history. Indulge my fantasy. It centers around James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway (the only wholly privately funded transcontinental railroad--and also the only one not to go bankrupt). Hill with his Great Northern Railway and Pacific steamships facilitated a growing trade between China and Japan and the various states (New England textiles, southern cotton, Pennsylvania steel). After the (unjustified) trustbusting of Hill and federal requirements in rate-setting (and other market interferences), the trade with the Orient dropped off considerably. So here's the what if: the government doesn't interfere. China and Japan would have had significant economic ties to the US in the early part of the 20th century and forward. This might have also meant stronger cultural ties, with China and Japan developing more liberal economies and possibly more liberal politics. This might have prevented a communist China (and Korea and Vietnam?) and an imperialist Japan. There likely would have been a more robust economy, and so the great depression is only a minor and brief recession. No depression, no FDR, no new deal. Without a Pearl Harbor, the US might not have gotten involved in WWII; but if it had, its entire focus would have been in Europe and so the war there might have been over sooner. Imagine the lives saved! Imagine the fortunes made! The increased standard of living for millions upon millions of Asians and Americans. It boggles the mind...and really makes the damage of government intervention in the economy concrete.

One will never know how history would have played out, but boy is it fun to let the imagination run amok.

Full Circle

My blogging has slowed quite a bit in the last month. Mostly, I am too busy. But, also I just haven't been inspired by anything. Here's some random snippets of what's been on my mind lately.

Why would a CBS affiliate preempt the first new Criminal Minds post-strike with a local Salvation Army Telethon?! I would have thought they couldn't do this. At least they had CSI:NY.

I love CSI:NY, but it does take some effort to suspend my disbelief that crime scene investigators are the first ones through the door on a police raid.

Why is it that Obama hasn't been hurt by his long-time association with (and refusal to distance himself from) the racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American Rev. Wright? One major reason is, I think, that most of the media portrayed his speech as a repudiation of Wright (even though it actually wasn't), so voters have given him a pass.

I had originally thought that Obama poised the bigger challenge to McCain in the general election. Mostly this was because I thought Hilary would bring the conservatives flooding to the polls to vote against her. But the more Obama's positions are set out, the less distinctive he appears from Hilary. He's for the same large, intrusive, unwise government programs (both live by the philosophy that there's no problem the government can't throw money at). He's foreign policy seems foolish and uninformed. About the only difference, is that Obama just seems nice and Hilary seems mean and bitter. Hell, that maybe enough.

By the general election, the conservatives will have unified behind McCain. The Democrats will be divided after a long primary battle between virtually the same person. If Iraq continues to stabilize and the economy is improving by November (which I think it will be as the housing market recovers), then I think McCain wins.

I should be emphatic here: I don't support McCain. He's not motivated by principles of individual liberty and limited government. But I tend to think he's far less damaging than Obama or Hilary. Especially with a Democratic Congress. Gridlock is Good.

Speaking of elections, I am constantly reminded of Cheers's Fraiser Crane's refrain when a politician came stumping to the bar: "But he didn't say anything!"

Speaking of Cheers, I've been watching a lot of the reruns over lunch lately. They are showing most of the later years. I think Fraiser and Lilith really carried that show through the last few seasons. They are consistently the funniest and have the more interesting plot lines. Most of the other characters where reduced to one-liners and silly shtick. (still funny, but not what it was in the days of Coach)

And we come full circle back to TV.

The Guild

For anyone who has ever felt like they might be spending just a little too much time on the internet, check out this web series. It is hilarious.

http://www.watchtheguild.com/episodes/

From their website:

The Guild is a independent sitcom webisode about a group of online gamers. It is written for gamers, about gamers by a gamer. Episodes vary from 3-5 minutes and length, and follow the Guild members’ lives online and offline.

Then what is it about?

This is something that has long bugged me.

You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't You?

Well...it is about him, isn't it?

Update: I wonder...maybe it is that the 'you' is plural. So she's singing about multiple guys and each one probably thinks the song is about him, when it is about all of them. Different terms for 3rd person singular and plural would help here.

A little bit older, a little bit wiser

George McGovern (yes, that McGovern) has an interesting piece in the WSJ today on freedom and responsibility. He argues against government paternalism and for protecting freedom of choice.

Hey, this guy should run for the Democratic nomination!

Harry Potter at Tufts

On Wednesday night, I spoke at Tufts University on Harry Potter. It was a great experience to be back at Tufts as an invited speaker. I think the talk was well received. I spoke with several students after the talk and they seemed to like it. My parents were there, and they liked it--but they have to be law.

The title of my talk was: Harry Potter and Humanity: Choice, Love, and Death. The essential idea of the talk is that HP has wide appeal because it deals with important parts of the human condition. I focus on two such points: the importance of one's choices and the acceptance of mortality. I argue that what makes Voldemort's evil possible, in part, is his refusal to accept his humanity and his mortality. I might post the talk here, but I may not--I think it needs more work. It is very different to give a speech than to post it in written form. If you are interested in seeing what I wrote, send me a request by email: sklein _at_ alumni.tufts.edu.

Here's the Tufts Daily newspaper article about the event. The article captures the event pretty well; though it misquotes me somewhat--but not in a meaningful way.

Some thoughts on being back at Tufts:

• The students look the same. I swear, they looked the same when I was there.


• The campus looks remarkably similar; yet, there are lots of differences. That is a testament to good design. They have upgraded many of the buildings and added some new ones without change the feel of the campus.


• As I passed through the campus I was flooded with memories of different moments in time; many I haven't thought of since their occurrence. So strange to return to a place where there are pieces of your life every where you look.

Thanks to the Ex College and the Tufts Harry Potter Society for inviting me.

How we got our Oscar

We started taking Bella to Petsmart on Saturdays for socializing so she can interact with other dogs and people. While there last week, we took a look at the cats they have up for adoption. Petsmart partners with local shelters for adoption, and this Petsmart partners with Winnebago County shelter. I got Malcom at the Petsmart in Mesa, AZ that partnered with the Maricopa County shelter.

So last week, there were several cats and though we thought about it and hung out by the cats' cages, we just weren't ready yet to adopt. This Saturday, two of the cats were the same as last time. The cat to become Oscar was there (the shelter named him Carter--we though Oscar just worked better) and was very playful and alert. He seemed interested in Bella and not in that "what a barbarian" way that most cats are. Earlier, another dog had come to his cage window, and he seemed very much interested in a playful way.

A saleswomen was alert to our interest and asked if we wanted to go in and play with him. Kristen and I looked at each other, knowing that "yes" was a yes to adoption, not just playing with him. We took the plunge. Oscar was very friendly and playful. He let you pick him up and hold him. When I picked him up, he gave me a little kiss and put his paw on my beard.

We had to wait until Sunday morning to take Oscar home because the county shelter had already closed. They called us in the morning and said the paper work had cleared and we could come and get him. We made our way down to the store, picked up some supplies and took our new housemate home.

The shelter neutered him and gave him most of his shots. He still needed to be tested for Feline Leukemia and Feline Aids. So he had to stay in our guest room quarantined from Malcom (these diseases don't pose a threat to Bella). I called the Vet's office on Monday morning and we made an appointment for later that afternoon.

He got the all clear from the vet and when I got home from school (early thanks to a snow storm) we began the integration process. We put both Malcom and Oscar in their respective travel bags and put them next together for about 15 minutes in Kristen's office. Then, leaving Malcom in his bag, let Oscar out of his to walk around and get comfortable. Malcom was throwing a little fit in his bag, but Oscar walked around and finally settled down and relaxed. After about 10 minutes, we put Oscar back in his bag, and let Malcom out. Malcom walked around, smelling all the places that Oscar had been. He hissed at Oscar in his bag and finally settled in behind Kristen's desk. After about another 10 minutes, we let Oscar out. Malcom wouldn't let him get too close, hissing if he got close. Oscar tried a few times, but then kept his distance. But only for a little bit, he'd try again and again. We finally just let them out of the room and have free range of the house.

Oscar shows no fear of Bella. Bella is nervous (because Malcom terrorizes her) around Oscar, but mostly just wants to smell Oscar's butt. Oscar doesn't mind for the most part, but when Bella gets too insistent or too sniffy, he takes off. This of course means that Bella chases him. They are getting better.

Oscar follows Malcom around now, clearly wanting to be friends. They chase each other around, but Malcom's hissing as mostly stopped. Still, they have some distance to go. I'm sure it is difficult for Malcom, but he got used to Sylvia, he'll get used to Oscar.

Oscar is very much at home now. He slept on our bed a good chunk of the day. He's eating well, playing with toys and the scratch post. He sat on my lap for a spell as we watched TV tonight. He lounges around in different spots, clearly comfortable where ever he is. He's very vocal and purrs a lot.

In short, he's a little sweetie who is very loving and playful. We are glad he's with us!

Oscar Time

On Sunday, Kristen and I brought home the latest addition to our brood.
Meet Oscar:




I'll be posting more about Oscar soon.

The Prodigal Son Returning

I am excited to be returning to Tufts University to take part on a colloquium on Harry Potter. From the Experimental College website:

"Why Take Harry Seriously?" -- A Spring Colloquium
March 5th, 6:30-8:00PM
Barnum 104
Join us for an examination of how the Harry Potter series has relevance beyond the page and screen.

Book Plug: Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts

Why kids lie

An interesting article on lying in the New York Magazine. It mostly focuses on how often young children lie, why they lie, and how often they do so.

Hat Tip: A&L Daily

Darwin Day

Happy Darwin Day (a day late...)!

From the Darwin Day website:

Darwin Day is an international celebration of science and humanity held on or around February 12, the day that Charles Darwin was born on in 1809. Specifically, it celebrates the discoveries and life of Charles Darwin -- the man who first described biological evolution via natural selection with scientific rigor. More generally, Darwin Day expresses gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.

The funny side of the elections

P.J. O'Rourke is one of my favorite political writers. His humor cuts through so much bull and often through the laughter one recognizes the truth.

His "Letter to Our European Friends" explains the US elections in a way that has to make everyone from all political stripes laugh out loud.

Here are some gems.

Explaining our two party system:

Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay.

On Mitt Romney as a conservative:

But Mitt was governor of Massachusetts. This is like applying to be pope and listing your prior job experience as "Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem."

On the Presidents as the Seven Dwarves:

We've got Dopey right now. We had Sleazy before him. Grumpy lost in '04. Sleepy was great in the 1980s, but he's dead.

On the libertarian side, my friend Patrick has done a thoroughly hilarious analysis of the libertarian candidates. They almost make Ron Paul look normal.

Seize this Honkus!

I'm posting this video excerpt in honor my classes this week. In Ethics, we are discussing punishment and in Business Ethics we are starting on Frankfurt's "On Bullshit". This first part of this clip (about 1 3/4 minutes) has one of my favorite scenes: an exchange between Mel Brooks and Bea Arthur on bullshit. The latter half (About 7 minutes) asks the question: what is the punishment for a slave who strikes a Roman citizen. Now, let's be creative folks!

I think I hit a nerve

My Atlasphere column is getting thoroughly thrashed in the comments section. There have been some positive comments, but most of the comments are fairly useless ad hominem and the like; though some of those are quite humorous in their stupidity. For example, several folks dismiss the article on the basis of my being a professor. Others accused me of being a hired political hit man. The most ridiculous though are the several people accuse me of being a socialist or communist. Apparently, criticizing Ron Paul for not arguing against social security and socialization of health care, and for having a view of federalism that would allow massive violations of individual rights by the states, makes me a socialist. More likely the reasoning here is: against Ron Paul, must be against libertarianism. Therefore, must be a socialist. The fact that I argue against Paul on the basis of being inconsistent with the principles of liberty and freedom is, I guess, irrelevant.

One of the themes coming out of the comments is that I didn't do enough research because I based my critique on Ron Paul's official campaign website. Several respondents pointed to other writings/speeches by Paul to indicate his views on various positions in contradistinction to my interpretation of his views.

I'm glad to revise my evaluation of Paul when presented with new evidence. When I first wrote the blog, I was more critical of Paul on free trade. Several of my blog readers directed me to columns he wrote where he clarified his views, and I changed my evaluation and softened my critique. Additionally, I've hardened my criticism on issues like "states' rights" and social security after reading more about Paul.

Still, this raises more questions than answers for me. I knew very little of Paul when I decided to do write this blog/column. As I said in an earlier post, it was an exercise for me to find out more about him that grew out of a discussion at our local Objectivist salon. The logical place to look is his campaign website; that's where I would expect to find the most definitive statement of Paul's views and his platform. That's what I would do for any candidate. It never occurred to me that the campaign website would be so different than the candidate's actual views. Moreover, I don't see how this helps Paul's case. It shows either he's a poor supervisor or he's intentionally misleading people to get support. The first should disqualify him from executive office and the second undermines the claim to be a principled.

New twist on an old thought experiment

Cow and Boy offer a new twist on the standard trolley thought experiment in moral philosophy.

Ron Paul Column at Atlasphere

My expanded analysis of Ron Paul on the issues is up at The Atlasphere.
This is similar to my earlier blog post, but expanded to include new material on Paul's campaign website.

So far the feedback has been mixed: people seem either to like the piece or hate it. The haters fall into two camps: those who recognize the flaws in Paul's candidacy but still see him as the least bad among evils and those who think I'm an idiot. (Though I suppose those are not mutually exclusive).

One question that comes a lot when I criticize Ron Paul is "so who do you support then?" I don't support any of the candidates. That Paul might be closest to my own views about many policy positions is not alone sufficient as a reason to support him. I want to know why he holds those positions. But as I argue in my column, I don't think Paul's positions--as stated on his campaign website--are that similar on many important issues.

I wrote the column/blog, in part, as an exercise of my own to understand more about Paul. Part of it was also as a warning that supporters of liberty and the free society shouldn't get duped by Paul's liberty rhetoric. I don't expect John Galt to run for president, I am not looking for perfection. But I want some one who understands what liberty and a free society means in a principled way. Looking at Paul's campaign website does not lead me to believe that he meets this condition.

My New Canadian Hero

Courage. Integrity. Principled. Passioned defense of freedom.

This video is the opening statement of Ezra Levant's defense of free speech before the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. It's a remarkable and inspiring demonstration. There are other clips of the hearing--all of which have Levant never wavering from his courageous stand against government censorship and violations of liberty.





(Hat tips to: Megan McArdle and Timothy Sandefur)

Pinker on Morality

Steven Pinker has a really interesting essay in the New York Times on morality. He discusses the role of evolution in forming what he calls a moral sense. His main thesis is that understanding of science and human nature do not undermine the importance of moral reasoning, but provide it with a more thorough ground and provides humans with a better understanding of who we are so that we can reason better.

I do not agree with a lot of what Pinker says in the essay--or at least his accounting of different features of morality--but the article is a good and worthwhile read. And I do think the general thesis is correct. Unfortunately, I do not have time to detail where I think Pinker goes wrong. I'll give that to you has homework.

(Hat tip: A&L Daily)

Liberal with healthy helping of the Market

Brink Lindsey has a great post that echoes thoughts I have long had about libertarianism: "Illiberal Libertarians". I've always been uncomfortable with the cozy relationship libertarianism seemed to have with conservatism. I am not a conservative. As Brink writes "I’m a libertarian because I’m a liberal."

I like the label "market liberal": it denotes that I am a liberal who views the problems of social and political life as best left to free individuals to resolve. Free markets and limited government are important political goals because they are the means by which individuals can best live free and flourish.

Conservatism, by contrast, seems more to be about limited government as means towards more social control. In order for the family, local community, and/or religious institutions to exert their power over the individual, the government needed to be limited.

One sees this in Paul's views: his misunderstanding of federalism to allow states to violate individual rights; his views on abortion, homosexuality, religious freedom; his vies on immigration and trade. On all these (see my post analyzing these positions), Paul uses, paradoxically, the rhetoric of liberty as a means to less freedom in our lives.

(And this is why Paul is not a libertarian. Check out Timothy Sandefur's tally of libertarian repudiation of Paul.)

I am less hopeful than Brink that those on the left--modern or statist liberals--are coming around to market liberalism. I do agree, nonetheless, with him that "making the case that economic liberalization is of a piece with overall social liberalization" is the best way forward in terms of helping the cause of liberty. This is because social and economic liberalization have their foundation in the same source: the individual's moral right to life and liberty.

Beware the Libertarian Label

Timothy Sandefur has a fantastic post "What will libertarians learn from the Ron Paul fiasco?"

A great point he highlights is that there is deep division in the libertarian movement: "the neo-Confederates at the Mises Institute on one hand, and what James Kirchik calls “the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine” on the other."

Kirchik is the The New Republic author that recently published an article detailing the often racist and anti-semitic content of newsletters that went out under Paul's name in the 80s and 90s. (Yes, there is some dispute about the authorship of these newsletters, but Paul doesn't deny granting permission to publish them under his name.)

Sandefur argues, and I agree, that the neo-confederate/paleo-conservative camp are not really libertarians. Of course, that side would argue that we are the ones who are not libertarians. There are real philosophical differences about the understanding of morality, individuals, the role of the state, and so on. So what to do? Sandefur hopes for a reformation of sorts: "a straightforward confrontation with complicated and challenging issues."

Maybe this whole Ron Paul hoopla will get people to think about these differences and where they stand on them. I began to think about them after 9/11 when I saw so many who claimed the label libertarian saying such foreign things about the causes of 9/11 and what our response should be. I also have met libertarians over the years who do not seem to have a deep understanding of or serious commitment to liberty. They are libertarians primarily on the basis of being anti-authority. I call them the let-me-smoke-my-pot libertarians. Yes they want government out of their lives, but not on a consistent principle and so end up supporting statist plans in other areas of politics.

This doesn't mean that there are not some committed, principled libertarians who do understand the importance of individual liberty and the proper role of the government. Most Objectivists get it -- though there are plenty of division there as well. Most of the folks at Cato get it most of the time. Reason Mag on its best days gets it too -- but since Postrel left Reason it's gone way down hill. (Read Postrel take Reason to task for missing the boat on Paul.)

The moral of the story: Beware the label libertarian. It has come to be a meaningless term that doesn't tell you anything useful about the beliefs of an individual.

TAS Summer Seminar 2008

After a one summer absence, I will be back at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar. Last summer, I was in Italy for my 5 year wedding anniversary and so I missed it. I'm excited about this seminar for a number of reasons (in no particular order):

1. I won't have an early morning presentation for the first time in years.
2. It's in Portland and I've always wanted to go to Portland.
3. I am presenting some non-traditional material.

TAS has accepted my proposals for the following:

"Did You Bullshit Today? What Frankfurt can tell us about Toohey."

Harry Frankfurt’s work on human agency and responsibility are staples of academic philosophy. But it is his popular appearances on The Daily Show that have made him one of the best-known living philosophers. In his provocative essay, “On Bullshit,” Frankfurt argues that the bullshitter is indifferent to truth and without concern for reality. Frankfurt’s analysis gives us insight into key Objectivist concepts and themes: the primacy of existence, the virtue of honesty, and the second-hander. Part One will focus on Frankfurt’s analysis of bullshit while Part Two will explore what this analysis can tell us about Objectivism.

“Playing Ball with Objectivism: The Ethics of Sports”

Sports have long been a part of human civilization and they play a significant role in the lives of most people. They also raise a wide-range of important ethical issues; and on many of these, Objectivism offers a unique and novel perspective. In this session, Prof. Klein will discuss many of these provocative issues, including good sportsmanship, fair play, and performance-enhancing technologies. He’ll also ask whether being a loyal fan of one's local sports club makes one a tribalist and whether the commercialization of sports is a positive development.

These should be a lot of fun to prepare, present, and discuss. I hope others share my enthusiasm!

Ajami and Ali share their wisdom

I came across two very interesting articles in the New York Times Books section today. Almost all the reviews and essays are related to Islam.

The first is an essay by Fouad Ajami. I've read his essays in Newsweek and usually find him interesting and intelligent. This essay is no different. He writes about his past criticism of Samuel Huntington's well-known (for good reason) article and subsequent book: The Clash of Civilizations. With hindsight, Ajami gives more credit to Huntington's prediction that the end of the cold war would be followed by a much more serious clash between Islam and the West. "Nearly 15 years on, Huntington’s thesis about a civilizational clash seems more compelling to me than the critique I provided at that time."

The second, and much more interesting, is a review by Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Lee Harris' The Suicide of Reason. Ali is the author of Infidel--a book on my to read list. And after this review, her book is bumped to the top of that list.

She praises Harris' book for its treatment of Islamic fanaticism: its utter rejection of reason, its glorification of self-sacrifice, and its “grand mission of conversion.” She takes him to task, however, for his view of the “fanaticism of reason.” This is his view that the West’s reliance on reason blinds the West to the true nature of the Islamic world. Reason leads the West to an assumption of universally shared values, motivations, and goals. But, Harris apparently argues, this is a fatal mistake. The Islamic world does not share the values of the West and assuming they do, leads us to misunderstand their actions and goals and thus fail to respond appropriately.

Ali doesn’t disagree with the essential idea here: that Islam and the West have fundamentally different world-views and values and that we in the West often fail to recognize this. Where she takes issue with Harris is in his view that reliance on reason is the culprit. Harris, she argues, seems to think that reason makes us weak and the reliance on faith and force in the Muslim world makes them strong: “our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural ‘suicide.’”

Not so, says Ali. Reason is our great strength, not our weakness: “The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little.” Harris fails to see the real problem: the West’s own rejection of reason: religion and romanticism. Both, she claims, are hostile to modernity and the Enlightenment (and thus reason). Romanticism encourages moral relativism and glorifies tribal life over the individual. This undermines reason and individualism in the West and gives succor to our Islamic enemies.

She appears to be drawing a similar distinction to one that David Kelley draws between pre-modern, modern, and post-modern (See his The Party of Modernity). Kelley argues that the pre-modern and post-modern are both opposed to the modern in their rejection (or diminution) of reason. Ali identifies religion as something that the Enlightenment must grow out of and overcome (pre-modern) and that the romanticism is reaction against the Enlightenment and reason (post-modern).

Ali recognizes that what the West needs to defeat Islamic fanaticism is to rediscover and embrace the Enlightenment: it needs reason and individualism.

Whether it’s Rand’s escape from the Soviet Union or Ali’s escape from Muslim tribal life, it is interesting that it takes some one born and raised outside the West to see not just the dangers inherent from where they came but the salvation offered by a culture of reason and individualism.

The Good, The Bad, and The Hope

It’s that time of year when many consider what New Year’s resolutions to adopt (and soon ignore). I don’t typically make New Year’s resolutions, but I do like to reflect on the past year and look to what the future holds.

2007--The Bad:

Without a doubt, the loss of Sylvia (Posts here).

Tempe home sale falling through, not once, but twice.

• The mortgage crunch cost us big when our original buyer was bumped by his lender and future interested parties had similar problems getting financing.

These two were the worst things that happened to us last year. I just cannot put the loss of the Patriots in the 07 AFC championship game on the same list as Sylvia. The former is a minor annoyance in comparison. I’d give the perfect season back if it meant having Sylvia back.

2007--The Good:

Getting Rockford College position.

• A nearly ten-year process to get my dream job of teaching philosophy full-time (I started my masters program in Fall 98).

Going to Italy and Paris.

• Kristen and I celebrate 5 years of marriage by spending 17 wonderful, but hot, days Europe.

Red Sox win second World Series this decade.

Patriots complete perfect regular season.

Patrick and Jamie get married.

• Watched two friends finally tie the knot and got to spend some great time with old friends.

2008--The Hope:

Finish the dissertation!!!

Sell/rent the Tempe home.

Success in the family expansion project.

Patriots win 4th Super Bowl in 7 years and go 19-0.

Continued health and prosperity of my loved ones.

Just fantasizing:

Serenity 2 announced

Spenser for Hire DVD release

All presidential candidates decided to withdraw from election, leaving a secretly cloned Thomas Jefferson to take over as president.

Perfection

16-0! Patriots closed out the regular season perfect. Wasn't always pretty, but always exciting. Now the real season starts. Go Pats!

My Daemon

If you are not familiar with The Golden Compass of His Dark Materials series (now a movie), then this will be totally lost on you.

More Concerns about Paul

I don't mean to be constantly harping on Paul. There is a lot wrong with the other candidates. I just keep coming back to Paul because 1) my libertarian friends keep tauting him; 2) I had higher expectations before I knew anything about him; and 3) the more comes out the more ridiculous he is.

At some point folks are going to have to realize 1) this guy isn't the pro-liberty guy everything thinks he is and 2) even if he is, he's a loon who's giving libertarians a bad name.

The latest: Paul doesn't accept evolution.

Hat Tip: Timothy Sandefur

Much Ado About Nothing: Steroids and HGH

The NY Times has an interesting Op-Ed on the effects of the use of steriods and HGH in baseball. In "More Juice, Less Punch," Jonathan Cole, a sociologists, and Stephen Stigler, a statistician, looked at the stats of players named in the Mitchell Report and found that the players' numbers (ERAs, batting avgs, home runs) do not show any statistically significant increase and in some cases show a decrease.

They do note that steroids and HGH might have aided a player to stay in the bigs and continue to perform longer, but haven't found a way to test that. If this statistical analysis is accurate, it adds more to my growing skepticism about the reasons for prohibiting the use of these technologies. If we have technologies that can prolong the careers of the game's greatest players: why prohibit them? Think of what Koufax could have done if his career wasn't cut short by injury!

Steroids raise serious long-term health risks and so that may be a reason for a private league to prohibit its use. But HGH, to my knowledge, doesn't have as significant long-term health risks. HGH is less studied, but the reported side effects are supposed to be rare (grain of salt warning: this is mostly from Wikipedia). Moreover, both steroids and HGH probably could be used safely under the direction of physicians for short periods of time to help with injury recovery (after all, this is how they are actually used in the medical establishment). And how is this any different than any other, non-prohibited, technologies used to help players recover from injury quicker?

I also think there are some arbitrary distinctions in this debate. Why ban HGH but allow cortisone shots? Big Papi got a cortisone shot near the end of the regularly season that allowed him to overcome a knee injury and perform in the playoffs. How is this any different than a player using HGH under doctor's supervision for overcoming an injury more quickly and effectively? The league bans amphetamines but not caffeine? Why allow Tommy John surgeries? For that matter, why allow weight training or physical therapy? These all help a player perform better for longer.

The argument appears to be some mix of the following:
1) The prohibited technologies are more dangerous and riskier than other technologies
2) The prohibited technologies are much more effective than other technologies

The first is more plausible, though paternalistic. The second is either arbitrary or just plain kooky. Why ban a technology that is more effective? One argument for 2 is the so-called history of the game argument. That is, in order to be able to compare the numbers of players from different eras (Ruth to Bonds), we prevent the use of certain technologies that would enhance the numbers of current players. One of the problems with this argument, however, is that it introduces the arbitrary element. Why HGH but not cortisone? Why not, then, also prevent the use of the much greater athletic training and medical knowledge we have now? Should we be using the technologies of the 20s to protect the history of the game? As this NY Times article shows, the use of HGH and steroids doesn't appear to have effected the numbers, but surely the knowledge athletes have about training and nutrition has effected these numbers to a significant degree. So this argument seems to work better if we ignore the use of HGH and focus on preventing players from using the gym and eating properly.

An Inconvenient Fact

Here's an inconvenient fact for you: world temperatures have not increased this decade. That's right, there has not been any global warming in almost 10 years.This is not predicted by the so-called skeptic-proof global warming theories. And guess what? The so-called consensus doesn't know how to explain this. They don't know if this is temporary or permanent. They don't know how to explain that while the theories say there should be consistently increasing temperatures, the temperatures haven't increased.

What does this mean? I am not sure, but I hope this data can allow for a more open and rational approach to climate change. One not based on intimidation and demanded obedience to a politically based consensus. And please, Al Gore: Go away.

Pat has chimed in.

Time: Dictators are cool!

Time Magazine has declared Vladimir Putin as the 2007 Person of the Year. The argument is that Putin has shown great leadership in bringing stability to Russia.

I'd argue by retreating from liberty and rule of law, he's done more long-term to undermine the Russian state and its stability. Truly great leadership would have been to bring stability to Russia without authoritarianism.

Time claims that the the Person of the Year award "is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse". Certainly, one would hope so, given that Stalin (twice!), Hitler, and Ayatollah Khomeini have all been named Person of the Year. (Past Winners)

Nonetheless, I think most people think of this title as an award or honor and despite Time's protests people will continue to think that way. I certainly was surprised to see Putin picked until I read the article and saw the history of the title. I still disagree with the choice of Putin, even by their standards. The runners-up were: Al Gore, JK Rowling, General David Petraeus, and Hu Jintao (President of China). I'd probably go with Investors Business Daily and chose Petraeus. By most accounts, he's doing a tremendous job in Iraq, bringing some order out of the chaos and fighting the enemies of the entire free world. Now that is leadership that will have a profound effect on America and the World.

Paul: Nazis are ok!

Little Green Footballs is reporting several stories about Ron Paul's ties to Neo-nazis and white supremacists. The first story was about donations from such groups and Paul's refusal to return the donations. Then, after distancing himself from these groups, some in these groups were feeling betrayed and are now claiming closer connections with Paul.

I guess Paul is for liberty as long as you're are white and Christian. That's not my kind of libertarianism.

Some light-hearted material

First, forwarded from Virginia (originally from KELO-FM 92.5 in South Dakota):

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

Second, from Philosopher Stone:

A funny (if you're a philosopher) parody of presidential attack ads: Kant is Bad for America

Thoughts on Iliad

In the lull before the storm of finals grading, I wanted to make sure to put up a post that's been waiting a few weeks.

Over Thanksgiving, I finally was able to get some time to finish the Iliad. I am really glad that I reread it after all these years. Reading a work like this in high school is important, but it is hard to appreciate it at that age and in that context. With so little life under one’s belt, it is hard to take to heart many of the lessons this book teaches.

My reaction to the book was something of a surprise to me. There were many aspects of the work that I found I didn’t like. I found myself bored in the middle books with the endless give and take of the battle. The endless list of names of the killers and the killed--and their genealogies. Moreover, I didn’t find that I connected or empathized with any of the characters, even the main ones. The constant intrusion of the gods into the affairs of the mortals also bothered me a lot.

That said, I have a greater sense of the importance of this work and the themes it discusses. I was never quite sure of the point of the Iliad other than being a great mythological/historical epic tale. Now, I can appreciate some of the themes that have made this story immortal.

The primary theme is, I think, the human condition of facing mortality. This seems to explain and integrate most of the story, from Achilles' actions and his contrast with Hector to the role of the gods in the story.

One of the things that had always bothered me about the Iliad was the point at which it started and ended. It starts with the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon that leads to Achilles withdrawing from the fighting. It ends with Achilles reintegration into the Greek fighting force and the death of Hector. The ending bothered me more. Why this point? Why doesn't the story continue to Achilles' death or the Greek victory?

After this reading, as well as listening to the wonderfully insightful The Iliad of Homer by Elizabeth Vandiver, I think I understand why it ends here. Hector is presented as the most human of all the characters. While he is helped by the gods, he is not related to the gods. He shows the range of human emotion and virtue: he demonstrates courage and wisdom but also fear and hubris. We see Hector interacting with his family; in particular, his wife and child. No other character gets that treatment. If the major theme of the Iliad is human mortality, then Hector's death--the paradigmatic human-- as the climax and ending of the Iliad makes sense.

One of the main pieces of understanding this theme came from Vandiver's lectures. She explains that Achilles doesn't accept his humanity. He pulls himself from the battle and separates himself from his community. For the ancient Greeks, this separation would be symbolic of renouncing one's humanity. He even seems to reject the mores of his culture when he rejects the honors to be bestowed on him by Agememonon if he rejoins the fight. Honor and glory are held up to be the ultimate ends of this society and Achilles casts them aside as unimportant. This is more god-like. The gods don’t need or care for honor and glory--they live forever, they don’t need, as the human hero does, the epic poem to give immortality.

Then there is Achilles near superhuman fighting ability. After he finally rejoins the fighting he goes on a killing rampage. Vandiver notes that during this rampage no other character kills another. Achilles also rejects the norms of fighting as well: he shows no mercy, indeed, no humanity. Achilles refuses to eat or bath while on this rampage. He is nourished by the gods so that he can continue to fight.

The most significant fact about Achilles, however, is that he knows his fate. He knows that he will die in Troy. This unique knowledge marks Achilles as different. Hector and the other characters do not know their future and when or how they will meet their end. Knowledge of fate is something the gods have, not humans.

Achilles doesn't seem human until he meets with Priam after killing Hector. It is then that he eats and sleeps. He shows to Priam kindness and empathy. Vandiver explains that Achilles has reintegrated into his community—and with his reintegration Achilles accepts his human condition and with it his own mortality. And so the Iliad can end.

The role of the gods makes more sense in the context of the theme of human mortality. As immortals, the gods offer a contrast to humanity. The gods are also petty and lack nobility. Only the humans can attain glory, honor, and nobility. That is, only humans have the need and capacity for morality. It is our mortality that gives rise to morality.

On a different note, I wonder to what extent Homer sees himself as a critic of the culture he is writing abut. He presents the fighting in a way that almost makes it seem futile and wasteful. During the longest day, where the Greeks and Trojans fight brutally, with the battle going back and forth with no progress for either side, there is a general sense of meaninglessness to the fighting. Homer paints us the scene of the fields are littered with the dead – he shows us that on both sides the dead are honorable and noble men. There seems to be an implicit question: but to what end and for what reason are they dead? This is probably my modern sentiments coming in, but I wonder if it is “really” there in the text.

I was also struck by Achilles’ refusal of the new and greater honors offered to him by Agamemnon if he returns to the fighting. He says that these don’t mean anything to him anymore. The greatest hero in the greatest story is rejecting the morality of his society. That strikes me as a criticism of that morality and society.

As I said above, I was annoyed by all the interferences of the gods in the battle. Each time one of the heroes seems in trouble the gods swoop in and save him. Or the hero is made stronger by the gods and goes on rampage. This undermines human achievement and autonomy. Why do we praise a great warrior if his greatness is the result of a god? This raises a variant on the Euthrypho dilemma: are the heroes great because the gods choose them or do the gods choose the heroes because they are great?

If you haven’t read the Iliad or haven’t read it in years, it is worth a new or first look. And I can’t recommend The Teaching Company’s course strongly enough as a companion piece.

Select a Candidate

Minnesota Public Radio has a decent presidential quiz. It asks you a bunch of questions about your views on the main topics of the day and then calculates your match. Unlike most quizzes of this sort, the MPR quiz actually has some variety in most of the answers and isn't just yes/no or favor/oppose (although there are some annoying ones like that).

I matched best, not unsurprisingly, with Giuliani. I was a little surprised by just how closely I matched with Giuliani. I am not quite sure what the score means, but I got a 28 with Giuliani. 23 for McCain. Interestingly enough, I only got 14 for Paul (same as Huckabee). Hillary came in second to last, only in front of Dodd, at a 6.

Hat tip to Virginia.

How to cover the elections

The most honest news story on the presidential elections:

Happy Nayrot!

Tonight, Dec 3rd, starts Hanukka (how do you spell it?).

As a kid, Hanukka was a time of presents and yummy latkes. In Hebrew school we were taught that Hanukka is the celebration of the miracle of the lamp oil: there was, the story goes, oil enough for one day, but the oil burned 8 days and allowed the re-dedication of the Temple after the Maccabees victory over the Greeks. Hanukka means dedication.

Interesting story, but it's not what makes Hanukka interesting to me--or it seems to Jews in general. Hanukka has a rather surprising checkered past, but the Jewish people never gave up on it.

Hanukka replaces the ancient holiday of Nayrot. Nayrot was a winter solstice holiday that like most solstice celebrations involved lights (Christmas lights anyone?). The winter solstice is the darkest time of the year and so ancient cultures would light fires and have festivals involving lights and fires to fill the dark winter period. This also probably involved a little of what the late Rabbi Wine called "imitative magic." The mystical hope was that by lighting fires this would inspire the sun to rekindle, get brighter, and lead to spring.

The Israelite priests weren't big fans of this holiday because it was part of an older Sun-worshiping religion and not the Yahweh worship they were pushing. They tried, but couldn't wipe it out. Then, the Maccabees used the holiday to solidify the memory and glory of their victory and Hanukkah was born.

Problem was, the Rabbis, who would replace the priests as the religious leaders after the destruction of the temple, weren't fans of the Maccabees. This is why the holiday and The Books of the Maccabees are not in the the Jewish Bible. The Maccabees, you see, didn't only fight the Greeks, but Hellenized Jews. When the Maccabees came to power, they were a bit on the fundamentalist side stamping out any form of Judaism that didn't fit what they thought was correct practice. This ended up pitting them against the Pharisees who would later grow into the rabbinical tradition.

Still, the ancient ritual of lighting fires in the dark winter months continued; the priests couldn't get rid of Nayrot and the Rabbis couldn't get rid of Hanukkah. Some argue that the Rabbis invented the story about the miracle oil in order to make Hanukkah fit more with the Rabbi's vision of Judaism. If you can't beat them, assimilate them.

So, Hanukkah isn't interesting to Jews because of some tale of oil. We love Hanukkah for the same reason our ancient forebears did: it's dark and cold outside (here in Roscoe, it's snowing!) and the bringing of light and warmth into the home at this time is joyful. It is also a moment of pride. We can conquer the winter, control fire, and be warm and prosperous even as the natural world (temporarily) dies.

And, of course, there are those latkes smothered in apple sauce.

Isolationism Confusion

Some readers have expressed concern about my referring to Ron Paul as an isolationist. (See my post) To be clear: I did not use this term as a pejorative or as means of shutting down discussion. I used it as a term that best describes his view.

I understand isolationism to be the foreign policy view that a country should isolate itself internationally. That is, isolationism is the view that a country should not engage in alliances, not provide support for allies, not participate in international organizations, and (or) not get involved in foreign conflicts. It is often used to mean neutrality, non-involvement, or non-interventionism. This looks to me like Paul's view; therefore I am not attributing to him a view that misrepresents him.

The first principle of the foreign policy of free country ought to the protection of the individual rights of its citizen. This view necessitates neither the isolationism as described above nor a policy of involvement. Different historical and circumstantial contingencies will require a consideration of how to best implement the principle of protecting individual rights. At times this might call for neutrality or non-involvement; but it might equally require entering into alliances or providing material and financial support to allies. Indeed, it might require attacking a professed and dangerous enemy.

Given the complexity of recognizing and properly appreciating these different contingencies as well as thoughtfully applying the principle of individual rights to these circumstances, it is no surprise that intelligent, honest, and rational individuals can disagree about what specific policy is best for protecting rights. What I find worrisome about Paul's view, as well as many libertarians, is that the answer appears always to be neutrality and non-involvement. What looks like consistency and principled policy is really just concrete-bound obstinacy regardless of the policy's relation to the principle of protecting individual rights.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Who kidnapped Ben Stein?

I used to get a kick out of Ben Stein, he was a funny, nerdy guy who appeared to understand economics and markets. He was a pop culture voice for freedom and economic education.

Now he's claiming that Darwinism is just a form of imperialism that has no proof and gave us the Holocaust.

WHAT?!

There might be intelligent critiques of Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, evolutionary theory, but Stein demonstrates that he knows neither about the theories nor the criticisms.

He should clearly stick to economics and Ferris Bueller movies.

NY Times article about the movie.

Bidinotto goes after Ron Paul

Robert Bidinotto has his take on Ron Paul and why his foreign policy view "is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military."

Bidinotto frames his analysis in a unique and interesting way, comparing non-interventionist libertarians to those who are always making excuses--sociological, environmental, or otherwise--for domestic crime. He argues that at root both views share an attack on American culture and values because these are held to be the causal factors behind the terrorists and the criminal. It is our cultural 'imperialism' that causes the terrorists to attack us and it is our culture that causes the criminal to be a criminal. The analogy is a bit of a stretch, but I think it does provide some food for thought on parallels between libertarians like Paul and Rothbard before him and modern liberals.

(See my post on Ron Paul).

CFP: What is Liberty Studies

What should undergraduate college students be learning about liberty? That's a great question, one posed by the The Center for Liberty Studies at the first Liberty Studies Conference. Below is the CFP for the conference.

First Conference on Liberty Studies

What is Liberty Studies?

5 - 6 April 2008

The College of New Jersey
Ewing, New Jersey

Call for Papers

The first annual Liberty Studies Conference, sponsored by The Center for Liberty Studies, will be held this April 5 - 6 at The College of New Jersey in Ewing New Jersey. The theme of our conference is "What is Liberty Studies?" This conference will put forth various ideas of what would constitute Liberty Studies by starting a debate and discussion concerning what undergraduate students ought to be learning about liberty. We are looking to disseminate substantive ideas that professors can consider for their own classes and home institutions.

Papers are welcome on any topic in liberty and from any discipline. We are looking for submissions that are accessible to a wide audience. Bibliographies and works cited should be limited to those works that either will be directly used in the classroom or are deemed important for instructor reference. Reading time of papers should be approximately 20 minutes. Accepted papers will be published in the new online Journal of Liberty Studies.

Abstracts of no less than 250 words are due by January 15th. Email submissions to conference@libertystudies.org Early submission is encouraged.

For more information about Liberty Studies and The Center for Liberty Studies, please visit our website at www.libertystudies.org

This year we are holding our conference in conjunction with the 35th Conference on Value Inquiry "Values and Medicine". For information on the Conference on Value Inquiry go to www.valueinquiry.net

Orthodoxy to Humanism

Here's an interesting post by Rabbi David Gruber explaining why he left Orthodox Judaism for secular humanism. He starts with the growth of his misgivings and then goes into detail on why he thinks the main claims of Orthodoxy are wrong--even immoral, because, as he says "it had robbed me of my individuality."

His new philosophy of life is:

I wish to base my life on a non-theistic world outlook that recognizes the supremacy of reason, and the dignity of the human being, who can and must stand alone in this world, and whose accomplishments and perseverance in an incredible and beautiful, while hostile and indifferent universe can and should be celebrated.

Hear! Hear!

http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2007/11/guest-post-from-david-gruber.html

More Python...No it isn't

The famous Argument Sketch:

Nietzsche's piling up the yellow cards

Monty Python's International Philosophy Match sketch:


Favorite Line: "Aristotle very much the man in form"

Hat tip: Philosopher Stone

In Memoriam: Sylvia (2001-2007)

Our little Sylvia is gone. She died Monday evening.



Sylvia was battling cancer since August. She had a brief remission after chemo treatment (from the wonderful UW-Vet hospital and Mostly Cats) and seemed to be doing better until about 2 weeks ago. The cancer was back and she began to regress quickly. There just wasn’t anything more to be done for her.

Kristen called me around 5pm and told me Sylvia was fading fast. I canceled class and rushed to the vet’s office to meet Kristen. When Kristen and I met there, Sylvia was already gone.

Sylvia will be cremated and buried with a perennial plant as memorial.

She will be greatly missed by Kristen and I, and Malcom and Bella. There is a void in our hearts that will never be filled.

Update: Added the link to Mostly Cats on 11/14, 5.36 PM

Book Meme Part two

Patrick added some books to the book meme, So I thought I’d add them to my list as well.

Possession

The Lord of the Rings

Harry Potter (1-7)

The Wheel of Time

To Kill a Mockingbird

I am embarrassed about not having ever finished this.

The Great Gatsby

First read for school, but have since reread and still like it.

A Room with a View

Read for a girl. Have to say from what I remember, I didn’t like it. As a man of more mature taste, I’d like to give it another shot at some point.

The Princess Bride

Does the movie count?

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

I Know. What kind of libertarian am I??!

Smilla's Sense of Snow

Animal Farm

Gone With the Wind

Lord of the Flies

Piggy!

A Passage to India

I saw the movie and liked it. This is what makes me want to give E M Forester another chance.

Heart of Darkness

The World According to Garp

The Cider House Rules

A Prayer for Owen Meany

Stranger in a Strange Land

The Stand

It

Carrie

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

On the Beach

The Sun Also Rises

Women in Love

The Trial

As I Lay Dying

The Tin Drum

The Tropic of Cancer

Fahrenheit 451

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret

Ah the simpler times of Judy Blume

Naked Lunch

The Big Sleep

Chandler’s great and is a must read for anyone who likes mysteries. And of course Marlowe is the inspiration for Spenser.

The Maltese Falcon

See the previous entry but change Chandler to Hammett. Is anyone as cool as Sam Spade?

Never Let Me Go

Remains of the Day

The Red Badge of Courage

Kill me now!

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold

The Hunt for Red October

The Dark Knight

Watchmen

Invisible Man

Uncle Tom's Cabin

Read for school during spring break trip in Jamaica. Clearly I recall nothing.

The Stranger

Bonfire of the Vanities

The Right Stuff

Things Fall Apart

The Way of All Flesh

The Wizard of Oz

Little Women

Tom Sawyer

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

And I was an English major. Go figure.

Charlotte's Web

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe

James and the Giant Peach

Mrs. Frisby and The Rats of Nimh

The Little House Books

Remembrance of Things Past

Tom Jones

The Wings of the Dove

Brideshead Revisited

Candide

The Hound of the Baskervilles

Paul Follow-Up

Several readers have charged me with misunderstanding or misconstruing Paul's position on some or another area, usually citing some op-ed or other piece Paul has written. Now these may be Paul's positions; however, I really only know what is on his campaign website and his statement on the issues posted there. I have not followed Paul's career and writings.

I find it curious, though, that his campaign website doesn't make Paul's best case. Several readers have indicated that Paul is all about free trade, not protectionism; so why doesn't he say this on his campaign website? He focuses there only on international agreements and how they undermine our sovereignty. Why doesn't he say, Social Security is unconstitutional and we should work to replace it. Instead he focuses there on keeping our promises to our seniors.

This may just be campaign rhetoric, but then where is the great principled defender of liberty? He hides his most important liberty views on his official campaign website statement of the issues. How odd.

Book Meme

These meme is making its way around. I got it from Freespace.

Directions:
1. Bold what you have read
2. Italicize what you started but couldn’t finish.

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell

Anna Karenina

Crime and Punishment

Started for some class, but never finished. I intend to finish at some point.

Catch-22

One Hundred Years of Solitude

Wuthering Heights

The Silmarillion

Life of Pi: a novel

The Name of the Rose

Don Quixote

Moby Dick

One day, that's right, read it one day for a class in college. I remember being more interested that I expected too. Skip the chapters that covering the history of whales and whaling.

Ulysses

Madame Bovary

The Odyssey

Audio books count, right?

Pride and Prejudice

Jane Eyre

A Tale of Two Cities

The Brothers Karamazov

Really wanted to like this, but just couldn't get through it.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies

War and Peace

BBC radio dramatization count?

Vanity Fair

The Time Traveler’s Wife

The Iliad

Currently making my way through Lattimore's translation.

Emma

The Blind Assassin

The Kite Runner

Mrs. Dalloway

Great Expectations

American Gods

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius

Atlas Shrugged

Reading Lolita in Tehran: a memoir in books

Memoirs of a Geisha

Middlesex

Quicksilver

Wicked : the life and times of the wicked witch of the West

The Canterbury Tales

The Historian: a novel

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Love in the Time of Cholera

Brave New World

The Fountainhead

Foucault’s Pendulum

Middlemarch

Frankenstein

The Count of Monte Cristo

Dracula

A Clockwork Orange

Hated it. Too violent and weird.

Anansi Boys

The Once and Future King

The Grapes of Wrath

The Poisonwood Bible: a novel

1984

Angels & Demons

The Inferno

The Satanic Verses

Sense and Sensibility

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Mansfield Park

One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest

To the Lighthouse

Tess of the D’Urbervilles

Oliver Twist

Gulliver’s Travels

Les Misérables

The Corrections

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time

Dune

The Prince

The Sound and the Fury

Angela’s Ashes: a memoir

The God of Small Things

A People’s History of the United States: 1492-present

Cryptonomicon

Neverwhere

A Confederacy of Dunces

A Short History of Nearly Everything

Dubliners

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Beloved

Always heard such wonderful things. Couldn't get through the first 20 pages.

Slaughterhouse-five

The Scarlet Letter

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Should be mandatory reading for anyway who ever uses the English language.

The Mists of Avalon

Oryx and Crake : a novel

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Cloud Atlas

The Confusion

Lolita

Persuasion

Northanger Abbey

The Catcher in the Rye

Holden was my hero when I first read this as a young teenage. Totally connected with him when I reread it in high school. Thought he was silly when I read it again in college.

On the Road

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Freakonomics: a Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance : an Inquiry into Values

The Aeneid

Watership Down

Gravity’s Rainbow

The Hobbit

In Cold Blood : A True Account of a Multiple Murder and Its Consequences

White Teeth

Treasure Island

David Copperfield

The Three Musketeers