My Sins

Greed:	Medium
Gluttony:	Medium
Wrath:	High
Sloth:	High
Envy:	Medium
Lust:	Medium
Pride:	Medium

Take the Seven Deadly Sins Quiz

I can be kind of lazy, but Wrath--that's a bit odd. And I would have thought Gluttony and Pride would have been higher!

Philosophic Star Gazing

Here's a worthwhile warning issued by Tibor Machan about some bad habits in the philosophic community:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/117/3446/2006-01-16.asp?wid=117&nid=3446.

Dissertation Committee Formed

I have reached a milestone in my progress towards a PhD. I have formed my disseration committee!

The chair of my committee is Peter French. He's the director of ASU's Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics and has a great reputation in ethics and related fields. He's long been the editor of Midwest Studies in Philosophy, and he also edits the Journal of Social Philosophy. My two other committee members are Michael White and Julia Annas. Prof. White is a professor of philosophy and professor of law at ASU. His knowledge of the history of philosophy (among other fields) is encyclopedic. Prof. Annas is a Regents Professor of philosophy at Univeristy of Arizona. She is very well known for her work in ancient ethics and virtue ethics.

My topic is going to be on Phronesis or Moral Wisdom. I want to explore its role in moral theory and in our moral lives. One of the questions I want to look at is to what extent neo-Aristotelian accounts like Rosalind Hursthouse's in "On Virtue Ethics" are superior to versions of Virtue Ethics (and possibly other normative theories), like Michael Slote's in "Morals from Motives", that seem to downplay phronesis. I also want to look at the development of phronesis from Aristotle up through Aquinas and into the modern period.

So now I am working on developing a reading list for my comprehensive exam--which I hope to take in May.

NFL's integrity in doubt

The NFL's integrity as a sport is in doubt. The officiating is so bad and so incompetent. How can the leading sport in the US have some of the worst officiating at the most important time of the year?

I am not just biased here. Yes, I am huge Patriots fan and was disgusted to see the officials hand the Broncos a TD on bad calls not just once, but twice! But I hate the Steelers, and I was outraged when the Polamalu interception of Manning was overturned. In many ways this was worse than the Samuel (bullshit!) pass interference. In that Samuel situation, the officials had to find sufficient evidence (which there in fact was) to overturn the ruling on the field. Okay, I get that someone judges (incorrectly) that there is not enough evidence to overrule the field decision. But in the Polamalu interception, the ruling on the field was that it was an interception. The official now had to find enough evidence to overrule that. With more time and more views of the play, there is no reason to get this call wrong.

Both of these horrific calls handed TDs to the opposing teams. I tend not to be attracted to conspiracy theories, but I am beginning to think that the NFL had a hand in these calls. Subtle pressure on the officials: We want the Colts in the Super Bowl, and we don't want the Pats.

I am more convinced of the first point. The Pats killed themselves in their game; despite the bad calls they could have won had they not made the mistakes they did. But the Colts had a puff schedule, rule changes to favor their style of play, and extraordinary calls in their favor.

(Before you bring up the Snow ball and the tuck rule: almost every commentator, analyst, expert, agrees that the official's ruling was the correct one. In the case of the two examples discussed above, almost everyone is in disbelief at the sheer incompetence)

Something has to be done to improve officiating. Replay isn't enough. It helps, but then these idiots in stripes make mistakes even with it. One proposal that I think might help is to set up an independent committee to review the officiating in each game, each week and to fine officials when they make the wrong call. That'll make them think twice before interfering, wouldn't it?

Edit (1/16 5.45pm): NFL admited that Ref got the call wrong. What I want to know is what consequences there are for the ref for getting this call wrong.

Nuclear Iran is not (cannot be) an option

Thomas Sowell's op-ed peice: Serious or Suicidal. (Try this, if that link doesn't work). Sowell provides a very clear account of the danger of a Nuclear Iran and the need to take serious action on this front. I am aware of the concerns, issues, and problems action against Iran poses, but I see no other rational alternative.

Ellie in the Boston Marathon

My sister-in-law, Ellie, is running the Boston Marathon this year. I grew up wanting to run it, but never happened (and with my knees and laziness--never going to happen either).

Ellie is running as a member of the Mass General Hospital Fighting Kids' Cancer team. She's trying to raise money for kids with cancer. Hard to argue for a better charity to give to. Kris and I donated some. Here's the link if any out in the blogosphere are interested in supporting Ellie in raising money for kids with cancer.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Kris and I rented this last night. Was actually quite funny. Totally absurd and ridiculuous plot--but I wasn't expecting or looking for realism is a movie like this. But it was very amusing and enjoyable to watch. I doubt I would watch it again, unless it was on TBS on Saturday afternoon, but it was worth a rental.

3.5 out of 5

Spenser returns to School

One of my favorite series of books is Robert Parker's Spenser's novels. Parker's lastest Spenser novel is School Days. One of his best in years. I think after several weak novels, the last few have been much stronger and more memorable.

Spenser is often cast a mystery novel, but usually there isn't a mystery. I categorize these books as detective novels--the books are about the detective, not the mystery. Anyway, School Days actually had me guess as to whodunnit, which was a nice change of pace.

Spenser was also back to old form: lots of wisecracking and flirting with members of the opposite sex. A very enjoyable read. Also raises some interesting questions about justice: in particular individual responsiblity and it's mitigation. Also some interesting questions about the justice system itself: role of defense lawyers, who gets punished and why.

The one draw back was no Hawk and no Quirk.

4 out of 5 stars.

Colts and Shadenfreude

My friend Joshua, over at Mudita Journal, has a post about 'Shadenfreude' (read his post here). Shadenfreude is the German word for "malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others". I have to admit that watching the Colts lose yesterday, I felt Shadenfreude. I hate the Colts and Manning annoys me. Watching him almost cry yesterday as the Chargers ran back the 'nail-in-the-coffin' touchdown felt, well, wonderful. Not as good as if the Patriots had beat them (or as good as watching the Patriots blank Tampa Bay), but still good. And that's Shadenfreude!

Trader Principle

The trader principle is actually a deeply engrained principle in our culture. The Trader Principle, in brief, is the idea (developed by Rand) that the only moral way individuals can interact is on the basis of trade; trade understood broadly as voluntary interaction for mutual benefit.

That this principle was deeply engrained occurred to me last night while watching ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Kris and I watch this show occasionally. It’s a bit cheesy, but there’s usually a nice, poignant story about the family who’s getting a home makeover. The demolitions are fun to watch, and the finished house always looks great. The basic idea of the show, for those with better things to do, is that a design team of 5-6 folks come to the house; sends the family on a week’s vacation somewhere while they completely redo the house. The families are usually folks who have had some tragedy befall them (son loses his sight and they need a blind-friendly house but can’t afford it, etc.).

Last night’s holiday special, was part retrospective looking back on the folks they’ve helped. But these folks wanted to help the design team help others, and so the each design team member went to some family that was helped in past episodes, and they went and worked on some one else’s house. Some examples: A soldier who lost his leg in the Iraq war had his house done, and he wanted to help a fellow soldier who lost his legs. A girl who was allergic to direct sunlight and was helped in a past episode wanted to do something nice for others like her—so they got DisneyWorld to open at night for these kids with XP (these disease prevents the skin from repairing the damage done by UV light, and so they can’t be in direct sunlight at all, ever. It was really quite sad.) You get the idea.

So what is the relevance to the Trader Principle? In each case, some one received help, aid, kindness from someone and they felt a need or desire to repay that. We don’t like to receive kindness or aid or gifts from others without doing something for them (or for someone else as a kind of proxy). Someone gets you a gift, and you say “But I didn’t get you anything”. An office associate does something out of his way to help you out, and you want to make it up to him (you take him out to lunch, buy him a beer, etc.) We want to make it a fair trade. And this was all over the Extreme Makeover show. Each person wanted to make good on what they had received by helping others in the way that each of them was helped.

I think this is evidence for the psychological basis for the trader principle: we don’t expect to get something for nothing, but moreover, we don’t want something for nothing.

A good Eulogy

After watching Napolean Dynamite, we put in Eulogy. I had never heard of this, but Kris has picked it up a bunch of times while at Blockbuster, so we decided to finally rent it. It has an interesting cast with Hank Azaria, Rip Torn (small role), Ray Romano, and plenty of others you'd recognize but I don't remember their names. ('Jean Grey' (Famke Janssen) from X-Men plays the lesbian lover of one of the characters--makes any movie, at least, watchable.)

The movie is largely seen through the ideas of the granddaughter, Kate. Her grandfather dies, and the whole family gathers for the funeral and to say goodbye. But this family takes dysfunction to an art form. They are just plain crazy. Over the course of several days, all the family's dirty little secrets come out and everyone's craziness gets, to some extent, explained. Very funny, some great characters. Ray Romano has a serious scene in the movie that makes you feel a little uncomfortable to watch--but that is the point and I think he does a good job at it (though his character is just a seedier version of his TV character).

4 out of 5.

Not blown away by Dynamite

Kris and I finally saw Napoleon Dynamite. Strange little movie. Everyone in that town was a bit odd. I particularly liked the character of Deb. She was quirky, but she didn't seem like an exaggeration like the rest of the characters. She had confidence and inner strength that made her stand out. Napoleon was downright weird. Pedro was an interesting character. Why was everyone so bored?

I was underwhelmed based on the hype this movie had, but it was still funny and memorable. I'd give it a 3 out of 5.

Edit (12/15): I've been thinking about this movie since I saw it. I definitely need to see it again--I think it's the kind of movie that will get funnier the more I watch it. Maybe then I'd appreciate it more.

Harry Potter and the movie that fell short

Kristen and I saw Harry Potter on Wednesday afternoon. Afternoon showing was not crowded and only a few annoying kids.

I give the movie 3.75 out 0f 5 stars. It was enjoyable, with a lot of end-of-your-seat action (especially towards the end). But there was little character development -- even of new characters. Dumbledore seemed to be mailing it in. Sirius had one scene. Of course the biggest compliant one hears is that the movie leaves too much out from the book. Which is true--necessarily so-- for any book longer than a 100 pages or so. But they left out some essential dialogue in the graveyard scene, and that was a big mistake. Yeah, I missed not seeing Dobby and the house-elfs, but that is not as essential to the story line. The bit of dialogue left out is very important to the overall plot arc that runs through all the books, and that really hurt the movie.

Still, it was great fun to see everyone back on scene and in action.

BTW, did I mention that I edited a book on Harry Potter? Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts

Wayback Machine: Self-Judgment Days

Rosh Hashanah has ended and Yom Kippur is coming soon, so I here's a commentary I wrote back in 2001 about these holidays. The article is about how a secular culture might adapt a traditionally religious holiday (such as Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashanah) to meet real emotional and psychology needs we have in a non-religious way.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/sklein_self-juddgment-days.asp

Rebuilding New Orleans Unconstitutional

Walter Williams compiles a number of quotes from America's Founding Fathers and other 19th Century leaders on the limits on government contained in the constitution--specifically on the limits of federal monies directed towards disaster relief.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/050921-williams-new-orleans-constitutional.php

Happiness and the free society

An interesting article by Johan Norberg on the connections between freedom, economic growth, and happiness. (Hint: there's a positive correlation between these)

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm

(Hat tip to Arts and Letters Daily)

Hanson on Gaza

I am uneasy about the Gaza pullout; unsure it will work and unsure that it is right. But I hopeful too, that it might work out for the best. Victor David Hanson pens an essay that captures that hopefullness and explains just how the Gaza pullout just might be the best strategy in the long term.

On the history of Israel

The following is a response to a post at the Rand-Discussion group at Yahoo Groups. The quotations are from the poster. I do not beleive them to be taken out of context.

-----

Not sure what this post is doing on an Ayn Rand list, but I noticed several gross historical errors in this post. I hestiate to respond because I do not wish to engage in a debate on these issues (because they typically degenerate into something not worthy of discussion). Nonetheless, the errors were egregious enough that some statement needed to be made.

"So with America and its many powerful Jewish citizens behind it, a plan was created to hand over control of Palestinian land to Jews."

First, the Americans had very little involvment in the UN commission that recommended the partition. (The commission was constituted by: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia) The US did work to create support for the partition in the general assembly vote, but it was hardly America's plan. Second, there was, no doubt, tremendous and vocal support from the American Jewish community for a Jewish state, but the Truman administration was more likely responding to general American support rather than some silly notion of powerful Jewish citizens behind the adminstration (according to some public opinions at the time 65% of American support the establishing of a Jewish state).

Most importantly, there was no plan "to hand over control of Palestinian land to Jews". Prior to Partition, Jews settled on land that was purchased or abandoned. The UN Partition planned called for a division of Palestine into two areas: Jewish and Arab. The partition was based on population. The areas that Jews got were the areas that Jews had a majority or ones that were largely unpopulated/unowned (60% of the Jewish Partition was the Negev desert). And the areas the Arabs were allocated were where Arabs had a majority. Most of the land that was turned over to the nascent Jewish state was land controled by the British Mandatory government and not owned by Arabs.

Hardly a plan to take land away from rightful owners.

"Not one in ten thousand today can tell you what the Palestines were given in return, myself included."

The UN Partition called for a partition into a Jewish and an Arab state. The Jews declared statehood when the Brits left and the partition begin. The Arabs declared war and invaded. So, what the Palestinians were given was the opportunity for an independent state of their own. The leaders of the Arab world chose instead to invade the Israeli state. I don't think any historical scholar believes that had the armies of Syria, Jordan and Egypt pushed the Jews out, that they would have set up an independent state for the Palestinian Arabs. It is more likely they would have divided up the area between the three of them. Evidence for this is the period between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan and Egypt controlled, respectively, the West Bank and Gaza (areas mostly alotted to Palestinian Arabs under the Partition) and did nothing to set up a Palestinian state, deal with refrugees, or establish Palestinian self-rule. (It is also telling that Palestinians didn't begin to call for their own state until after 1967 and these areas were controlled by Israel)

" Israel's troubles are thus partly due to the fact that they as a
nation originated as a UN resolution, and did not grow organically
through a political process that included the voice of indiginous
Arabs."

The state of Israel _did_ grow organically from the early 1900s until 1948. The institutions and organizations that become the State of Israel did not spring into existence on May 15, 1948, but had been developing and growing for decades. Moreover, the Arabs probably had more of a voice than Jews in the process through the other Arab countries in the UN general assembly.

"The US, particularly during the critical
Kissinger years, simply looked aside and gave Israel free reign,
peferring to stall any final settlement talks, allowing Israel more
time to crush insurgents. "

Anyone well versed in the history of US-Israel relations knows how untrue this statement is. The US has always used its close relationship with Israel to hold Israel back. The US was pivotal in getting Israel to give back the Sinai after the Suez War and the 6 Day War (in the US brokered peace treaty with Egypt in 1978). By analogy, giving the Sinai back to Egypt would have been like the US being forced to give Alaska back to the Russians during the height of the Cold War. (There is also a questionable insinuation here that Kissinger -- who's Jewish--played a role in letting Israel have "free reign")

"did it take 911 to make the United
States realize it must force Israel to relinquish its hold on the
occupied territories?"

This is not a historical inaccuracy per se, however, it is based on an incorrect assumption. The US is not forcing Israel out of Gaza. While the adminstration is vocally supporting the plan, it is my understanding that there are many in the adminstration and congress that are against the pullout. Morever, it is also my understanding that this has been an idea floating around Israeli policy circles for years and is largely a homegrown idea.

Also, wouldn't it make more sense, after 9/11, for the US to pressure Israel to stay in Gaza and the other disputed terrorities for the same reasons we are in Iraq: to destroy the centers of terrorist activities?

"[The Israel-Palestinian conflict] has directly lead to the present state of terrorist warfare."

The idea that somehow if Israel didn't exist, that the US wouldn't be under attack from Islamic terrorism is absurd. The Islamists do not hate and attack America(and the West) because of Israel. They hate Israel because it is part of the West. Al Qaeda rhetoric doesn't mention or where it does gives small mention to Israel before and after 9/11. Though sometimes Israel gets prominent place in rhetoric, the thrust of anti-American(Western) hostilities is because we are a symbol of individualism, secularism, and freedom. I suggest the following:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/navigator/articles/nav+dkelley_ideas-terrorism.asp

Personally, I have my doubts about the disengagement plan. I fear that the Palestinian Arabs will take this as a sign of weakness on the part of Israel and continue terrorism with renewed fervor.

Shawn

Taking Harry Higher

My undergraduate alma mater, Tufts University, recently did a web page cover story on yours truly. You can read the profile here. The web cover page has since changed, but you can see what it looked like here.

For the cover photo, Tufts sent a professional photographer to snap some shots of me. It lasted an hour and half and required a few wardrobe changes. I felt like a real celebrity, it was very odd. But alas, no groupies.

Academia and Rand

An interesting extracurricular discussion at the graduate seminar was to what extent one should be open about his interest in Rand. While I recognize that there are those in academia that are hostile to Rand and her ideas, I personally have never encountered such hostility. Nor have I ever felt that my interest in Rand was held against me in any way.

My experience has always been that what counted was how well I did my work--not what particular beliefs I hold. This is how it should be. I am sure there are those that fall short of upholding this ideal, but that has never given me enough reason to go 'in the closet' about my interest in Rand. I've always been pretty straightforward about what positions I hold, and I don't know how not to be.

There is outright bias against a thinker--which is inappropriate and irrational. This certainly exists in some quarters against Rand. I am less concerned about this. I'd rather not be in a department with faculty who would hold my particular interests and positions against my like that.

But there are legitimate concerns here about someone with a deep and committed interest in a particular thinker. (1) a concern that the individual will have tunnel vision and thereby not have the proper perspective on the whole field of philosophy. (2) a concern that an individual will treat the classroom as a source of philosophical 'converts'. (3) a concern that an individual will be biased in the teaching (and grading) of philosophy.

Such concerns arise regardless of the thinker, but I believe are heightened with a thinker like Rand who is outside of the mainstream of academic philosophy.

I don't think I fall prey to those three concerns. My goal as a teacher has never been to make more Objectivists. Such a goal is completely out of wack in education. My goal is to teach my students how to think, to open their minds to the world of ideas and reason. With this as my goal, those three concerns are not even issues for me. I hope that any potential employers will look at my record and see that as well.