In very important American Idol news, Corey Clark has been booted off the show for failing to disclose the fact that he was arrested for beating up his sister and resisting arrest. I'm glad Fox is doing the right thing -- but it's definitely not as great a loss as Frenchie the porn star.
Read more...... a Marine at war with a sense of humor:
Umm Qasr is essentially a void now in the daily briefings of the Iraqi disinformation minister. His last mention of Umm Qasr was a vow that it would never fall into the hands of the “pirates” (arrrrrrrgh) and “gangsters” (mama mia!) of the coalition. This is essentially true, in that the coalition is devoid of either. American and British troops did take the city, though, and are in the process of… doing nefarious things like public works projects.
There has to be as many aid workers and civil engineers running around the coalition-occupied territory of Southern Iraq as there are fighting troops now. And the last I checked, the pirates of the Caribbean were not especially concerned with the welfare of those they invaded.
And I’m short a parrot, damn it.
Can we stop the postmortems already? Peter Arnett is already declaring this thing a failure on Iraqi television. And that’s a damn shame, because I live my life in constant need of approval from Peter Arnett.
Look, I can understand Pete’s need to switch over to a network with more viewership than MSNBC, but come on, I thought the journalist’s credo was “objective,” not “aid and comfort.”
I'm down to 20 messages in my inbox! Hooray!
I've been hovering around 100 for months now, despite my weekly clean ups, so this is a real victory. Perhaps I'll get down below 10 next week. That would be astonishing. More likely I'll be up to at least 50.
Just remember folks: The best kind of e-mail is good news to which I need not respond. :-)
A few days ago, Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice sent me a copy of his and Dana Berliner's op-ed on the Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case. It's excellent, as expected. They write:
Conservatives, especially, ought to be wary of casting their lot with the states on this issue. If the states can ban purely private conduct between consenting adults, what is to keep them from banning home schooling, for instance, or instituting mandatory preschool, or requiring parents to follow certain nutritional guidelines for their children? Conservatives who condone a process that leads us down this path need to start asking themselves what exactly it is they are trying to conserve.
Unfortunately, the left's approach is no better. Where conservatives extol the virtue of state government power when it comes to certain moral or lifestyle issues, the left extols the virtues of government power when it comes to regulations of property and economic affairs. Both sides love government power when it suits their immediate agenda, but both ought to realize that this approach is only as good as one's ability to control a particular legislature. The left ought to recognize that it cannot pick and choose which aspects of individual liberty are beyond government power. Privacy is worth very little if one has no property on which to practice it.
Take a deep breath. Put down all food and beverages. Sit down securely in your chair. "But why?", you might ask Because I do not want you to hurt yourself or damage your property upon reading this hysterical story on the dangers of indoor radio-controlled blimps.
Read more...Sometimes, I must admit, life is just too good. Stories of exposing commies just don't get much better than this one.
Read more...This commentary was found at the end of an otherwise normal review of the documentary Uncle Saddam:
However, Americans, who were led to believe by President George Bush that Iraq would be a cakewalk with 'liberated' Iraqis dancing in the streets to welcome the Anglo-Americans axis troops, are looking askance at reports that the Iraqis are actually holding out. It is evident that the Iraqi people, in their time of crisis, have proven to like Saddam and are now rallying behind him against the US-British aggression.
The heroic resistance of the Iraqi people has stunned the West and the Arab world, and all those who believed the battle would end quickly for the benefit of the US and British armies. It is clear that the Iraqi people, whom they wished to liberate, refuse to accept freedom brought to them by the tanks of the occupation forces. Western policy makers miscalculated their strategy and admitted that the time was ripe for Britain and the US to seek an "honorable" solution in the United Nations.
When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: "With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam."
I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food.
His answer shouldn't have surprised me, but it did.
He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else."
Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq.
The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein.
I just read the most revolting OWL post ever from Mike Rael. Mike has been around a long time. He should know better. Anyway, here it is:
Hi friends:)
I've begun looking for Saddam's actual uncensored speeches. So far, I have found the following link, that involves his talk with Dan Rather:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542173.shtml
Saddam sounds like a conman, mixing truth and lies. But, in all fairness, he sounds far more dignified than we could have imagined from the soundbytes we have heard on TV.
One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as "unserious." As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam's rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.
One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as "unserious." As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam's rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears.
best wishes all,
Mike
Mike,
I must admit your OWL post to be one of the most revolting proposals I've ever heard. Should FDR have debated Hitler about the proper response to the "Jewish problem"? Saddam is a brutal dictator who does not deserve the pretense of being treated as a respectable or rational person. The only debate ought to be over the mode of his speedy demise.
Go read this article on what his son is allowed to do:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/.
Sheesh, even Sports Illustrated is writing on the brutality of his regime. Do you pay no attention? Do you notice nothing more than the facade?
No self-respecting, moral person would ever even consider standing up in debate with a known liar, let alone a man who routinely uses torture, rape, and murder as means of securing his domination over others. I'm truly amazed that you would regard the proposal of debate as "serious" or at all worthy of consideration. The mind boggles.
diana.
Steven also has this sober and insightful analysis of the progress of the war from a friend and a retired military officer.
And more... Steven offers a delightful description of France's recent mangled olive branch. To take it, "all we have to do is apologize and repent, and France won't hold our misbehavior against us." That reminds me of a former friend's attempt at reconciliation after a rather serious break. There too, acceptance would have required me to grovel in apology and repentance -- but I had little hope of wiping the slate clean of my allegedly horrible crimes. (I won't name her, but surely my friends -- often former friends of hers as well -- know exactly who I'm talking about.)
Oh hell, forget this piecemeal stuff. Just start at the top and read down.
A question: If Iraq is using state-run television to commit war crimes (by showing American dead and POWs) and to urge terrorists attacks (by urging civilians to suicide bomb US military forces), how can bombing it be the "war crime" that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Do brutal dictatorships have a right to spread propaganda, to commit war crimes, and encourage terrorism?
Steven Den Beste has the real round-up on the sell-out of these organizations to leftist ideology, first in this post and then in this one.
Pro-war liberal Michael Totten has one of the best collections of war images I've found. Just keep scrolling down for more, as he posts them periodically.
Read more...Thomas Sowell comments on who is pro-war... and it's not who you might think.
Read more...The BBC's winning captions for the picture of Michael Moore (below) sucked. The proper caption surely must be "Yes, yes, without my spandex girdle, my butt really is that wide!"
Really, what else could he be saying?
I'm none too enamored of retired military men drawing upon maps for the news channels; they're just too coarse to be informative. Lileks puts the point just so much more nicely:
I’ve kept track of the war via the radio and the web. Radio gives you the news of the moment; the web gives you detail and commentary. TV is useful for pictures - I get the feeling sometimes this should be called Operation Stock Footage - and it’s useful for seeing retired military people draw lines on maps. I am heartened by the maps that show where our troops are located - if the pictures are indeed drawn to scale, we have three soldiers on the ground, and each is about 135 miles tall; they have at their disposal four tanks, each of which is the size of Rhode Island.
War has inspired a great deal of excellent blogging. Heck, even I'm posting more than once per day. So here's a few tidbits:
We get many phone calls from the media wanting to know casualty numbers and information about places hit. There's a lot of talk about precision. Are the Americans hitting precise targets? Are they keeping casualties to a minimum? It makes me very angry. Even if it were precision bombing, precision being that not a single civilian or home were hit, it still doesn't make this war legitimate. (Emphasis added.)
As many have commented, calling the anti-war protesters "peace protesters" is inaccurate, as peace is not their object. Life under Saddam's rule, after all, is hardly peaceful. But today, Nordlinger goes further, arguing that "anti-war" might not be so accurate either. He writes:
Speaking of the very, very ugly: You may have seen the banner that "antiwar protesters" carried in San Francisco: "We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers." So let us put to rest the notion that all of the protesters want only the "safe return of our boys"; that they are simply gentle, high-minded peace-lovers.
It reminds me a little of the Vietnam era. After the fall of Saigon — and after reports of reeducation camps, boat people, and mass murder reached the West — the Left said, "All we wanted was for our boys to come home, to be out of harm's way." I'm sure this was true of many activists. But a great many of them were openly pro-North, pro-Ho, pro-Communist, pro-American defeat. This was a fact that got greatly obscured, in later years. Jane Fonda, for example, was in no significant sense antiwar: She was for the victory of the Communist North against the America-backed South.
Although it has long been impolite to say that.
Incidentally, you probably noticed that I put "antiwar protesters" in quotes above. That is because some of these people are hardly antiwar, more closely resembling the Fonda of yore.
NoodleFood apparently isn't worth much, but at least it's listed on the exchange!
Eugene Volokh dissects the various meanings of "natural" with his usual insight and precision. (Scroll up for more.) From a philosophical perspective, attempts to justify normative claims on the basis of "nature" seem to run headlong into Hume's is-ought gap. We cannot determine what we ought to do simply on the basis of our capacities and functions, for all the reasons Eugene indicates.
I would say more but work beckons... -- and not because philosophizing and programming are natural!
Wow, I wouldn't have thought it possible, but someone has managed fifty examples of pure snark on a single page.
Read more...I've been involved in a debate over the past few days on the Nathaniel Branden Forum on the nature of libertarianism. (Basically, the debate has been between the positions of Peter Schwartz's "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" and Nathaniel Branden's Objectivism and Libertarianism.) My basic argument was presented in my first post:
There is a world of difference between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party. In my experience, the LP tends to more anti-government than pro-liberty. Far too many of its participants are motivated by a rebellion against authority and a desire to smoke dope et al legally than a genuine regard for individual rights. I have neither love nor respect for the LP.
Small-l libertarianism is a political philosophy of individual rights and minimal government. Some attempt to justify it in wrong ways, but that doesn't make libertarianism itself any more problematic than egoism is as a moral theory. And without a doubt Objectivism's political philosophy is a libertarian one. However, that doesn't imply that Objectivists must accept the arguments of non-Objectivist libertarians, although many of them are compatible with Objectivist and worth attending to. The point is merely a descriptive one.
So I'm not a Libertarian, but I am libertarian -- and so are other Objectivists, whether they recognize it or not.
I appreciate and agree with the points made by Dr. B. and Diana. I was once intrigued by the fact that Ayn Rand had told writer Joan Kennedy Taylor that her politics was "libertarian." And, at one time, Rand had little or no problem describing it as such or drawing parallels with it---whatever her discomfort with the word (as so well expressed in Nathaniel's essay). Just yesterday, in fact, I heard a very interesting interview with Rand.
In contrast to conservatism, which she rejected as "futile and disastrous," Rand states in that interview: "People like the libertarians, [Ludwig] von Mises or [Henry] Hazlitt [both of whom Rand knew and highly recommended to her readers], do not advocate a mixed economy. The so-called libertarians are much better in that respect."
Note: She wasn't condemning the group as a whole---the way Peter Schwartz did---as a bunch of whim-worshipping tribalists. She goes on:
"The libertarians are a loose group; they do not have a specific program; the differences will vary from individual to individual. In a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is in the fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them, exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their philosophical frame of reference, it varies from man to man, and we are usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework, but in agreement with most of their economic theories. Now, Objectivism is not a political-economic movement, at least not primarily. Objectivism is primarily a philosophical movement, which means that we derive our politics and economics from a certain philosophical framework . . . We do agree with much of their political-economic views."
(See "Conservatism versus Objectivism: An Interview with Ayn Rand" circa 1963-64)
I suspect that the debate over the use of "libertarianism" reached fever pitch because of the anarchists within libertarian politics. But describing Objectivist politics as "libertarian" is no different than describing Objectivist ethics as "egoist." OBVIOUSLY, Objectivism has enormous differences with other forms of libertarianism and other forms of egoism, but that doesn't make it any less libertarian in the political sphere or egoist in the ethical sphere. It's all a question of classification.
And since libertarianism as a political doctrine is simply the 20th century equivalent of classical liberalism, and that use of the word "liberal" in today's political culture has been preempted by its use to describe "welfare statism," I, quite frankly, do not see what the big deal is.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a member, of the Libertarian Party. I'm a registered independent. I occasionally vote for LP candidates when I despise the choices among the major parties. Whatever my voting patterns, I can certainly attest to the fact that small-l libertarianism is much broader than upper-case Libertarian Party Politics.
It seems that anti-American non-Americans are almost as stupid and just as ridiculous as our very own anti-war protestors.
Read more...Jacob Levy offers a compelling explanation of why American, British, and Australian troops are fighting together in Iraq, but fellow Anglosphereans Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand are sitting on their hands at home. Very interesting...
Read more...In discussing anarchism, Jimmy Wales said this on Atlantis today:
Keep in mind, here, that I agree 100% with the Objectivist politics. In terms of my own political and philosophical views, I'm a very dull sort of ordinary Objectivist with no fancy frills like determinism or anarchy or anything of the sort. :-) As radicals for capitalism go, I'm very conventional.
In Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government", _Virtue of Selfishness_, she offers a "reduction" of the concept of government, asking "Do men need such an institution -- and why?"
1. If we read that essay carefully, taking full note of the wider context of the concepts of Objectivism, we can pull out and analyze _just_ those aspects of her discussion of government that would have direct bearing on the question of whether (and to what degree) the institution of "organized force" must be a monopoly.
My own belief is that Ayn Rand did not treat this question with as much detail as it can be treated today, because much anarchocapitalist theory was unknown to her at that time. (Because it hadn't yet been developed!)
2. After we've done that, we can consider the question "Does the maintenance of such a monopoly necessarily involve rights violations?" I think the answer is that it does not, that Childs argument on that point fails, but I think that the question *is* a compelling question that deserves a detailed answer.
In Chapter 39 of Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman makes an interesting argument as to why minarchy produces worse laws than anarchy and therefore it is in the nature of governments to expand in size and power. If I understand him correctly, he argues that in a minarchy, good law is a public good, while in anarcho-capitalism, bad law is a public good.
A particular good is a "public good" if (1) one person's consumption of the good does not interfere with another's (non-rivalry) and (2) it is very difficult, if not impossible, to produce the good for some people but not others (non-exclusion). Because of these limitations, public goods will be underproduced in the marketplace, even when the value exceeds the production costs. For example, national defense is a public good, because my enjoyment of our system of national defense does not impinge upon my neighbors' enjoyment of it and because we cannot create a system of national defense in which I receive the benefits, but my neighbors do not.
Under a system of limited government, good (rights-respecting) laws have both the features of public goods. Imagine that a new, simpler tax code has been instituted. My taking advantage of the new tax code does not prevent or inhibit anyone else from doing exactly the same thing. Additionally, I can take advantage of the tax code even if I did nothing to promote it or even voted against it. The new tax laws apply to everyone in the jurisdiction. On the other hand, bad law is often a private good. Particular individuals can benefit greatly from special interest legislation to give subsidies to, for example, only sugar growers.
As a result, as David Friedman notes, "any attempt to improve the society as a whole is caught in the ... public good trap. Anything I do to make America freer will benefit everyone; the small part of the benefit that is going to me is rarely sufficient to justify my doing very much." (I>Machinery of Freedom, 157)
In a anarcho-capitalist system, on the other hand, good law is a private good, while bad law is a public good. Friedman writes, "Good law is still expensive -- I must spend time and money determining which protection agency will best serve me -- but having decided what I want, I get what I pay for. The benefit of my wise purchase goes to me, so I have an incentive to purchase wisely. It is now the person who wishes to reintroduce government who is caught in the public good problem. He cannot abolish anarchy and reintroduce government for himself alone; he must do it for everyone or for no one." (Machinery of Freedom, 158)
This public good-private good analysis both shows why our government (despite an amazing constitution) has grown into a leviathan over the past 200 years and indicates that anarcho-capitalism is likely to be far more stable a system.
Because the apparent instability of minarchy over time is of great concern to me, I am very interested to hear the minarchist response to these criticisms. Is Friedman's analysis of the issues here correct? Is it possible to compensate for the public good effects in minarchy through economic incentives? (In other words, I'm uninterested in appeals to how moral people will act in the hypothetical minarchy. I don't hold much stock in the moral fiber of individuals when promises of unearned money and the trappings of power beckon.)
My friend Tom Stone informs me that the Ayn Rand Institute has bought Second Renaissance, which runs Ayn Rand Bookstore and Objectivist Conferences. The announcement of the purchase confirms the news.
In more exciting news the Ayn Rand Bookstore has been hacked by some vaguely coherent (although not very funny or smart) anti-war hacktivists.
Paul just suggested that our armed forces liberate California after we're done with Iraq. The territory is about the same size, with a great deal of desert. And Californians are living under a repressive government. Furthermore, the repressed minority of conservatives in the areas north of San Francisco would likely be willing to take up arms to overthrow the Davis regime. I just hope that the Liberals don't set the oil fields on fire...
Ah, it's good to have my husband at home again.
Reporting a story on Iraqi officers stealing their soldiers' pay, Instapundit makes fun of this ridiculous Samuel Huntington quote permanently displayed on Salam Pax's blog:
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
But having officers who don't abscond with their troops' pay is, in fact, one example of the superiority of Western ideas, and it's one that translates rather directly into superiority where organized violence is concerned. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Dictatorships like Saddam's -- which based on history and prevalence might be regarded as the "natural" form of human governance -- turn out to be lousy at war. Democracies embodying Western ideas turn out to be a lot better. That's not a coincidence, however much non-Westerners might wish to believe that it is.
Stephen Hicks is a smart guy... and some of the people responding to him are clearly ... shall we say ... "philosophically challenged."
Read more...Terry blogs about Bigfoot documentaries:
By the end of these documentaries, it was clear that the makers wanted you to believe in at least the possibility of Bigfoot's existence. I came away believing that Bigfoot shows how powerful boredom, a gorilla suit, a movie camera and a case of Olympia beer can be on the human psyche.
Hooray! I've been plowed out! The dogs and I celebrated by getting the mail out of our now-lopsided mailbox. (The impact of the snow from plowing the street has pushed it about 30 degrees off-kilter.) Thankfully, Paul will be able to come home tonight, rather than spending a fourth night at the Aurora hospital. Even better, he'll be bringing two gallons of my drug of choice: MILK! I made "war cookies," i.e. walnut chocolate chip cookies made (unintentionally) in the opening hours of the war, but I ran out of milk last night. Gack! Cookies and water is less than satisfying.
I wasn't aware of how burdensome the confinement was to the dogs until our walk down the driveway. Well, I walked. They leapt and wiggled and ran and bounded and panted and sniffed and chased and scurried and... We were going down to the barn twice a day to feed the horses, but that clearly wasn't terribly satisfying to them. They clearly appreciated the room to run.
My easy walk tonight was nothing like yesterday evening's pre-plowing hopeless attempt to get down the 500 feet or so to the road. (I only made it about 50 feet, as snow was simply too deep and heavy.) But tonight was a pleasant and easy jaunt. Hooray!
Jed Babbin and I have had similar thoughts about the consequences of embedding the press. He writes:
For those of us who wore the uniform in the Vietnam era, the most amazing thing is not the capability of our soldiers, or their equipment, or the level of success so far. It's not the calm, tough aura around the field grade and senior commanders. That stuff is all the norm. The amazement comes from the attitude of the press embedded with the troops.
During Vietnam, we shunned the press. They were the enemy, almost as much as the North Vietnamese were. They couldn't be trusted, and deserved the mushroom treatment. The "five o'clock follies" body count briefings were meant to keep them at a distance. But the Newly Embedded Pressies (or "NEPs" if I am permitted to invent an acronym) are learning much in a prolonged lesson denied their predecessors. They are getting to know -- and love -- the guys on the line. Being there, seeing these young folks, their intelligence, training and enormous capability will implant a respect for the American soldier no other experience can. Big Dog Don Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers have built a bridge to the press that will pay off in fairness and understanding for decades to come.
Peter Saint-Andre has a nice tidbit on political emotivism up on his blog. Based on interviews I've seen, a "Boo Bush!" emotivism is indeed the driving motivation of many war protestors. But, as Peter notes, Republicans often suffer a similar knee-jerk reactionism of "Boo Clinton!"
So how about a more general "Boo statist politicians!" instead? :-)
The National Weather Service reports that Sedalia has received 54 inches of snow as of 4:20 pm. And the snow is still falling... but it's expected to taper off tonight.
Wow.
I'm not sure how much snow has fallen as of this morning. My yardstick was nowhere to be found, presumably buried under the snow. (For that matter, so was the Nissan Sentra parked outside.)
It was very difficult to get down to the barn this morning to feed the horses. It's only about 150 yards, but that's a long, long way when then snow is up to your waist and higher. On my first attempt, I got about 15 feet before a chilly collapse into the snow. I had rather unpleasant visions of myself stuck in the snow halfway to the barn, cold and exhausted, unable to move. So I headed back to the house, bundled up in long underwear, snow pants, and tightly bound work boots, and headed out again. I managed to get down to the barn using a slightly less deep path, one with snow only to my thighs. Both of the dogs even managed to follow me, although not without a fair amount of struggle.
The horses are pretty much locked into the barn by the snow, although the overhang provides enough of a path to get to the water trough. They were very happy to be fed, so I'm glad that I made the effort to reach them this morning. I only hope that the path I cut this morning isn't completely obliterated tonight.
I'm sure Paul won't be coming home tonight. (No other radiologists could make it into Aurora today. While he takes a break this morning, cases are being read remotely from Swedish by two radiologists who live in walking distance of that hospital.) And I'm sure I won't be going to school on Thursday. (Campus might be closed again... I hope it is.) Our driveway is scheduled to be plowed tomorrow, but that might be difficult, given how heavy the snow is. Frankly, I figure that I'll be lucky if I leave the house in a week.
As much of a pain as this blizzard is, the precipitation is most welcome, given the drought we've been having these past two years. Snow now means fewer fires this summer, after all.
Okay, so here's the fun part, the pictures. Just remember that the ground is more than 3 feet below the snow level.
This is our house, as seen from down the driveway. The lefthand lump on the right side of the photo is my old Nissan Sentra. You can also see the large overhang of snow from the outside here, shown below too.
So this is the overhang of snow, as seen from the garage. I have to pass underneath it to get to the path to the barn, which worries me greatly. I have no desire for it to fall on me or the doggies, after all.
This is the barn as seen from our covered west porch.
One of our trees.
Another poor tree. Note the top of a 4 foot fencepost to the left of it.
Yet another poor tree.
So, America might have many allies in the war, but I'm feeling pretty darn isolated lately.
Read more...While snowed in today, I finished a major revision of my paper on false excuses. It's been restructured, retitled, and reworked. (The old version is still available here.) I'm very pleased with the end result, delightfully enough.
I took time off from other work to revise the essay so that I could submit a superdooper good version to the "Jentzsch Prize in Philosophy," a departmental graduate student essay contest. The deadline was today, so I was working down to the wire... but that's nothing new.
I'll be starting the process of journal submission sometime in early April. I'm not sure what my first choice will be, but most likely an applied ethics journal. As always, I'd love comments and feedback on the new version. Since I'm trying to get it published, I won't be posting it on the web site, but I can e-mail it as an attachment to anyone interested in helping me make it just that much better.
When I went to bed last night, about 5 inches of snow lay on the ground. By morning, there was 15 inches. Now my yardstick reads 24 inches, with many more inches on the way. As you might have guessed, I didn't drive the 60 miles up to Boulder for classes today, although the university is officially open.
9 pm Update: The local news just reported the official snow figures. Sedalia has received 31 inches of snow, which is consistent with my measurements. It is expected to snow all night and tomorrow for another 7-14 inches.
I haven't found the figures for Boulder yet, but the university has already closed down for Wednesday. Frankly, I wonder how many people showed up a classes today, given the heavy snowfall. I'd probably be stuck sleeping in the cruddy grad lounge in Boulder if I had tried to go to classes today. *shudder*
10 pm Update: Paul won't be coming home tonight. He is working 3pm-11pm shifts all week long, so instead of driving 2 hours and 30 miles of dangerous roads home from Aurora and then reversing the trip tomorrow afternoon, he's spending the night at the hospital. (Nearby hotels were booked.) I just hope to see him tomorrow night!
Terry wins the prize for the best link request letter ever! It's pleasant! It's descriptive! It's funny! But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
Hello Diana,
I'm sure you remember me - my best friend is Jimmy Wales, and I joined you and Paul on my first time ever shooting a hand gun! I've done that many times since then, thanks in part to your's and Paul's great instruction.
Now, down to the proverbial business. I read the post on your blog about Jimmy not linking to your blog, and his being a blog snob. I got to thinking, maybe Diana will link to *my* blog :) It's called American PhotoBlog, and it's based upon pictures I've taken of natural wonders, historical artifacts, or about anything else I find interesting. I write my 2 cents about the pictures as well. Have a look at http://tfresh.blogspot.com.
I'll gladly link to your blog in return. Unfortunately, I'm not the most HTML adept individual, as every time I try to put links in the blog template, they never work. Once I have this figured out, I won't be a blog snob, and I'll link to you.
I hope things are going well for you and Paul in the great Rocky Mountains. Drop me an e-mail sometime and let me know how life is for you.
Take care,
Terry
Paul has the latest news on the mysterious and dangerous pneumonia that is spreading rapidly through the world. Unlike other recent disease outbreaks, this is dangerous and deadly to even the strong and healthy. Even worse, no one has recovered from this illness yet. This sounds really bad.
Read more...I'm not much of a fan of Peggy Noonan, but her sympathetic analysis of the deep problems of the Democratic Party is well worth reading. I particularly enjoyed this passage, definitely the most direct and blunt in the essay:
Let me be, admittedly, mean, but to make a point I can't figure out how to make any other way. Those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms are not as a rule the kind of people who would, or could, take down a nut waving his gun at the kids in a McDonalds. Those who oppose gun rights are more like the kind of people who when the incident was over would write a sensitive essay about how it felt to come face to face with one's existential powerlessness when faced with the sudden force of a sick man who alas shot two kids right in front of me. You may mean to be helpful in the abstract, but you are not helpful in the particular.Read more...
Conservatives are on the side of the citizen who'd protect the kids and takes down the bad guy with the gun. Aren't you, really? Shouldn't you be, "for the good of the children"?
The only think I love more than James Woods is James Woods playing Rudy Giuliani!
Read more...Josh Zader has posted an interesting argument that Shane McChesney's essay The Quality Depression falls into the trap of the broken window fallacy. Josh's analysis strikes me as dead-on.
Frankly, I suspect that much of the sluggishness of the economy can be attributed to these endless months of waiting for war. Who wants to invest when so much uncertainty looms?
Thankfully, playtime with Saddam seems to be drawing to a close. Then again, I've been saying that for months now...
David Friedman is now a blogger -- albeit one with only two posts so far. But knowing how prolific he has been on usenet for years and years, I expect to see a very active blog. (I hope, at least!)
So welcome to the blogosphere, David!
In response to my question about whether payments to the families of suicide bombers constitutes solicitation of murder, my friend Bill Perry (former prosecutor and present judge in Arizona) offers a useful analysis:
Perhaps some of my experience and analysis can be of assistance. I've prosecuted a murder for hire case in which a murder occurred. I've also prosecuted murder for hire cases which did not result in a murder.
In the case in which the murder occurred I convicted the person who was hired at trial. He was sentenced to life in prison. I prosecuted the woman who hired him in a case that was covered on Court TV. The jury hung. Another prosecutor tried her later and she was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The woman's boyfriend plead to solicitation of murder (which is specifically a crime in Arizona) and received a lesser prison sentence.
In this case the woman hired the killer to murder her husband. However, she did not pay him. Payment was to be what he could steal from the victim who was a used car sales manager and carried a lot of cash, plus a later payment. Thus, there is some analogy to the case of paying murderer's families in the suicide bomber scenario since there was a subsequent payment.
I am certain that under Arizona law, and the law of most states as well, that if someone offered a bounty to kill a specific person they could be prosecuted successfully (assuming proof issues). I am not quite as certain that they could be prosecuted for a general call to kill someone in a specific group, with a later payment, but I think that they could. I know of no case law on the subject.
The Arizona law is based on the Model Penal Code, and is a good example in this situation.
The crime of solicitation is defined as follows in Section 13-1002(A) "A person, other than a peace officer acting in his official capacity within the scope of his authority, and in the line of duty, commits solicitation if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, such person commands, encourages, requests or solicits another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute the felony or misdemeanor or which would establish the other's complicity in its commission."
However, this crime is seldom prosecuted in this manner because the accomplice statutes make a person guilty of the offense itself (if it is committed) if under Section 13-303 (B)(1) "The person solicits or commands another person to engage in the conduct causing such result:" or (2) The person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result." Thus a prosecutor can charge a person who solicits murder with the completed offense should the murder be committed.
In my case the woman who hired the hit man was ultimately convicted because she hired him. She was not present at the time of the murder. She was convicted under an accomplice theory. The boyfriend was plead to solicitation because he was not involved in the plot at the end, and was a much lesser participant. In theory he could have been convicted of first degree murder as well.
Let's analogize this to a terrorist suicide bombing. We will assume that the acts take place in Arizona, or a place with similar statutes. There are two groups A and B. A1 is a member of a group which hates all individuals belonging to the group B. He publicly announces that he will pay a bounty to the family of anyone who wires himself with bombs and kills B1 (a specific individual belonging to group B). A2 wires himself up and kills B1. A1 pays $100,000 to A2's family. Assuming proof beyond a reasonable doubt A1 is guilty of murder under an accomplice theory and is also guilty of solicitation of murder.
Let's change the facts a bit. A1 makes the same public announcement. However, it is an announcement that he will pay a bounty to the family of anyone who wires himself with bombs and kills any member of group B. A2 wires himself up and kills B2. A1 pays the bounty to A2's family. I would argue that the same result would occur, because the statutes solicitation and accomplice statutes do not mention a specific person. However, I know of no case law.
Here is another scenario. A1 makes the same public announcement with B1 as a target. No one kills B1. The question here revolves around the meaning of the portion of the statute that says, "...commands, encourages, requests or solicits another person." The question is whether that requirement is that the defendant solicit a specific person. The solicitation statute is met except for that, portion and I don't know how a court would rule. I've also prosecuted cases in which people have attempted to hire hit men to kill people. Of course they ended up soliciting cops. In that case they have started out with a general solicitation, and moved on to specifically soliciting one individual to do the killing. I've never seen anyone advocate prosecution for the general solicitation, but I suspect that if something as blatant as a general call to kill a specific person with a reward occurred in a suicide bombing context that most prosecutor's offices would prosecute, and most courts would uphold a broader interpretation.
Finally we have the situation in which A1 makes the same public announcement which members of group B in general as a target. I don't think that the fact that a specific target is not named would bar the application of the statutes. The same problems of the call going to people in general, rather than a person would apply.
Paul and I just watched tonight's American Idol; the performances were, on the whole, much better than in the top ten of last season. I must admit that I'm presently completely partial to Clay Aiken. The combination of the geeky look, the self-confidence, and the smooth voice is just too much for me to resist! Mmm... red hot geeky love...
I wasn't going to bother to blog that silly little bit, but then I realized that I could blog with my laptop from bed, as our wireless home network is now up and running. Awesome!
So what's up with Jimmy having a blog?!? He's been posting for months! And I only found out about it due to a chance perusal from The Volokh Conspiracy to Throwing Things. I've been blog-snubbed by a good friend! *grumble*
In any case, Jimmy's blog is the ever-friendly A Sharp Stick In Your Eye. His latest post concerns the difference between Michael Jackson and Fred ("Mr.") Rogers. Really. It's a hot topic these days, I swear.
I am neither a believer in George Bush's alleged stupidity, nor a fan of the "Who's on first?" bit. As such, I almost didn't bother to read this little dialogue. But sheesh, it's really funny.
The President meets Security Manager Condoleezza Rice.
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader in China.
George: Great! Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinese guy!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, Sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the UN on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi?
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the UN.
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy in the UN.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the UN
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, Sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East. Just get me the guy at the UN.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Condi: (picks up the phone) Rice here.
George: Rice? Good idea! And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?
I'm presently rewatching The Matrix while setting up my new and speedy server. (After setup, hopefully next weekend, I'll be swapping out this new server for my present old and tired co-located server.)
I was inspired to watch the movie again after listening to David Chalmers' excellent lecture "The Matrix as Metaphysics" yesterday at Boulder. Chalmers argued that the "Matrix Hypothesis" that "I have (and have always had) a cognitive system that receives its inputs from and sends its outputs to an artificially-designed computer simulation of a world" is not, contrary to our intuitions, a skeptical claim, but rather a metaphysical one. He argues this point by showing that the Matrix Hypothesis is really the conjunction of three non-skeptical metaphysical thesis, namely:
(1) Creation Hypothesis: "Physical space-time and its contents were created by beings outside physical space-time."
(2) The Computational Hypothesis: "Microphysical processes throughout space-time are constituted by underlying computational processes."
(3) The Mind-Body Hypothesis: "My mind is (and has always been) constituted by processes outside physical space-time, and receives its perceptual inputs from and sends its outputs to processes in physical space-time."
So Chalmers writes:
If this [analysis] is right, it follows that the Matrix Hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis. If I accept it, I should not infer that the external world does not exist, or that I have no body, or that there are no tables and chairs, or that I am not in Tucson. Rather, I should infer that the physical world is constituted by computations beneath the microphysical level. There are still tables, chairs, and bodies: these are made up fundamentally of bits, and of whatever constitutes these bits. This world was created by other beings, but is still perfectly real. My mind is separate from physical processes, and interacts with them. My mind may not have been created by these beings, and it may not be made up of bits, but it still interacts with these bits.
The result is a complex picture of the fundamental nature of reality. The picture is strange and surprising, perhaps, but it is a picture of a full-blooded external world. If we are in a matrix, this is simply the way that the world is.
I'm finishing up my mental causation paper this morning, so all I have to offer is this silly joke:
Jesse Jackson was visiting an elementary school and he visits one of the classes. The class is in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the Rev. Jackson if he would like to lead the discussion on the word "tragedy." So Jesse asks the class for an example of a "tragedy."
One little boy stands up and offers: "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a runaway tractor comes along and knocks him dead, that would be a tragedy."
"No" says Jesse Jackson,"that would be an accident."
A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy."
"I'm afraid not, " explains the Rev. Jackson. "That's what we would call a great loss."
The room goes silent. No other children volunteer.
Rev. Jackson searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"
Finally in the back of the room a very small boy raises his hand. In a quiet soft voice he says: "If a jet carrying the Rev. and Mrs. Jackson were struck by a missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy."
"Fantastic!" exclaims Jackson,
"That's right. Can you tell us why that would be a tragedy?"
"Well", says the boy, "because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."
Ever since I first heard of the payments to the families of suicide bombers, I've had a legal question that I hope some blogosphere lawyers can help me answer. The question is: Is the payment of families of "martyrs" for killing infidels substantially different from murder-for-hire?
Potential suicide bombers know that their families will be paid (by Saddam, Saudi charities, and so on) if they kill some Jews and Christians in the process of blowing themselves up. Granted, no personal contact is made before the bombing. And particular individuals are not targeted, only members of groups. But isn't knowledge that the money will be forthcoming as a result of criminal action enough to justify murder-for-hire? In particular, don't the families of the murderers enter into the conspiracy by accepting the payment for the murders?
Back in April, Bush said that those paying the families of suicide bombers are "guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind." Is the charge of soliciting murder only a metaphorical or moral claim? Could it be made to stick in a court of law?
P.S. Today is my blogiversary! Horray!
As I was going through some old files, I found this little bit, written a few months ago. It's still pretty relevant today:
I've often idly wondered why deep racists bothered denying the holocaust. If the Jews are so terrible, so subhuman, then what was wrong with sending millions of them to the gas chamber? Why spend so much effort denying something that the morality of deep racism indicates is a positive good?
Along similar lines, Best of the Web made an interesting observation:
There's an intriguing parallel between Holocaust deniers, who argue simultaneously that the Holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews had it coming, and those in the Arab world who say both that Sept. 11 was a "remarkable achievement" and that Arabs didn't do it.
An e-mail note from Marsha Enright:
Today's the last day to get the lowest price on my seminar, "Ayn Rand's Vision: How to understand it and use it in your life," April 4th-5th in Columbia, MD (between Washingon, D.C. and Baltimore).Read more...
For more information on the seminar, visit my website, www.fountainheadinstitute.com. Send me a message if you want to register.
The price today is $300 for a two day seminar, going up to $350 ($150 for students). However, I am offering a special price of $150 each for groups of 10 or more. I will honor the lowest price for those who notify me that they wish to register by the day they get this email notice. Thanks for your attention!
Marsha Enright
The Fountainhead Institute
Chicago, IL
773-677-6418
I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.
Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.
Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
