Philosophy Blog

Happy Birthday!

2008-05-08T05:56:00.003-07:00

Today is the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel (Yom Ha'atzmaut). In many ways, it is the most successful state formed out of former European colonial possessions. The area that became Israel was a British possession and before that part of the Ottoman Empire.

It has a growing and stable economy, rich in high-tech and bio-tech. It is also one of the more successful countries to shift from a centralized, socialistic economy to a more decentralized, freer economy. This is, of course, one of the main reasons for its growing economy.

Israel has fought 4 major wars with its neighbors, not to mention decades of battling terrorists. Its air force is one of the best in the world. Many of the tank fighting strategies deployed in both the Gulf Wars were developed by the Israelis on their battlefields. The cooperation between the militaries of Israel and the US has been a boon to both countries.

Economically and militarily, Israel is an unquestionable success story.

Yet, Israel still struggles with its identity. It is largely a secular society, but identifies itself as a Jewish state. It struggles with dealing with issues of democracy and equality regarding the Israel Arab minority as well as differences between Jews of European descent and those who emigrated from the Arab world. It wrestles daily with the weight of controlling disputed and violent territories. And even after 60 years, it contends with an international community that is, at best, unsure how to relate to with her.

Somehow, this is fitting for a Jewish state. Individual Jews have, in analogous ways, the same struggles. Many of Jews outside of Israel are also secular but do not shed their Jewish identity and connections. This balance between secularism and religion is always a challenge for Jews--even those who are expressly religious. This is why some retreat into the confines of Hasidic communities where they largely cut themselves off from the outside world. And why others reject their identity all together so as not to be connected with religion at all. Most Jews, however, find themselves somewhere along the spectrum of secular and religion; not wanting to jettison their Jewish identity, but not wanting to live by restrictive and arbitrary rules.

Individual Jews also contend with the differences between Jews. Since the Jewish Enlightenment, The Haskalah, in the 18th century when Jews began to integrate into European society and culture, Jews have struggled with the choices their fellow Jews have made. Some chose to completely assimilate into European society--going so far as converting to Christianity. Others chose the opposite path fighting against any integration and forming insular communities that avoid Christian Europe. Again, most were some where in between, balancing being Jewish and European.

In Europe and American, there was and is prejudice between Jews. The more highly cultured and assimilated Jews looking down upon and embarrassed by the Tevyas of the world. We see this in the late 19th century when German Jews, already established in the US, had to deal with these Yiddish speaking, peasant immigrants from Eastern Europe. And we see it today between Hasidic communities and other Jewish communities. A Reform Jewish family living in Manhattan has more in common with (and get along better with) its Presbyterian neighbors than with the Hasidic Jews living across the river in Crown Heights.

And Jews today are still uncomfortable and unsure of their relationship with the non-Jewish world around them. We are, largely, successful economically and socially. Anti-semitism is still an issue, but it is not respectable and usually hidden. Jews do not worry about not getting jobs or in to schools anymore. They don't worry about getting into social clubs or politics. Few fear being dragged from their work and beaten. And yet, most Jews, deep down, have some nondescript, undirected worry. "It could happen again. It happened in Germany and Jews were comfortable and successful there"

And this brings me back to Israel. One of the main reasons Jews are so supportive of Israel is because we need to know its there. We need to know its there as an escape valve--if things get bad enough, there is always Israel. We need to know its there as a source of pride--see what Jews can do. We need to know its there because it unites Jews--it's one of the few things most Jews can agree on.

I hope that the next 60 years will bring more prosperity to Israel, peace with its neighbors and its Arab population within, and wider acceptance within the world community. But Israel, like all Jews, will always struggle with its identity--that is, ironically, our identity.

Never Forget. Never Again.

2008-05-01T08:30:00.003-07:00

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

2008-04-18T05:47:00.004-07:00

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

2008-04-14T20:37:00.004-07:00

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

2008-04-13T07:45:00.003-07:00

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

2008-04-10T15:56:00.003-07:00

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......?

2008-04-03T18:55:00.002-07:00

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

2008-04-03T16:19:00.005-07:00

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

2008-03-23T11:17:00.003-07:00

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?

2008-03-11T14:13:00.002-07:00

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

2008-03-07T07:27:00.003-07:00

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

2008-03-06T07:50:00.004-07:00

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

2008-02-26T20:48:00.003-07:00

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

2008-02-26T17:30:00.002-07:00

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

2008-02-21T20:04:00.003-07:00

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

2008-02-15T07:05:00.002-07:00

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

2008-02-13T11:06:00.001-07:00

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

2008-01-31T09:17:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-01-29T13:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-21T06:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-21T06:45:00.000-07:00

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

Ron Paul Column at Atlasphere

2008-01-18T13:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-01-15T10:14:00.001-07:00

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

2008-01-12T11:02:00.000-07:00

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.