like mike

2003-08-10T22:28:00.000-05:00

Buddhism and Mysticism

One of the objections to Buddhism is that it is “mystical”. According to Nathaniel Branden, “Mysticism is the claim that there are aspects of existence that can be known by means of a unique cognitive faculty whose judgment are above the authority of sensory observations or reason.” ( The Art of Living Consciously). Mystical belief involves obtaining knowledge without the use of reason or sensory perception—and claiming that one’s observations are as valid or more valid than those that can be backed up by sense perception or reason.

However, when applied to Buddhism, this charge should be deemed false. In my opinion the prime understanding that one obtains through meditation is psychological. That is to say while meditating one does not necessarily obtain a metaphysical understanding of the outside world as much as a psychological understanding of one’s thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Through meditation one does not primarily learn of objective reality but skillful use of one’s thoughts and feelings.

Considering the above characterization of mysticism, one may even wonder if this “third method of knowledge” theory even applies to reality. As it is put by David Brazier in The Feeling Buddha , “The enlightened were beyond faith: they did not just believe what the Buddha said, they knew it was true from their own experience… In enlightenment, faith and personal knowledge merge, yielding an experience that radiates confidence.” The process of enlightenment is not about learning things through some new means of knowledge. The Buddha teaches things that can be confirmed by experience. This means that the knowledge that is gained is at some fundamental level similar to what is learned from experience at any other time i.e. that information that is gained through the senses is integrated through reason.

If there is any way that the process of learning through meditation is different from any other process of gaining knowledge, it is that issues and emotions become more conscious. Through the process of meditation one attempts to more clearly and more dispassionately understand one’s thoughts, emotions, and experiences. This is not to say that it is not without interest—because one can definitely be self interested in the results of meditation. However, through meditation emotions can take a lessened grip on the mind, and therefore things become clearer as well as better understood.

The point to meditation is not to gain knowledge in some super-sense related/rational means. Instead it is to break down emotional barriers to conscious integration. I have often been told that if I keep meditating I will find it harder and harder to eat meat. That is not because I will gain any additional knowledge of animal suffering, or pain, or anything like that. It simply means that when one takes that bite of veal one will be more conscious of the pain and suffering that went along with the production of my dinner and be unable to finish it.

Finally, it is important to remember that the Buddha specifically asked his followers not to take his teachings on faith. One should only believe what he says if they find that his teachings are matched by reality.

2003-08-05T01:36:00.000-05:00

Anger: My new attempt at Buddhist-Objectivist Synthesis

[Ed--I have been, for a few days, attempting to write an essay about Buddhism and Objectivism. I couldn't come at it from an overview, sort of work from basics up point of view. Really, it was not a basics up, but a simply a theoretical point of view. I have abandoned this. Now I am going to go at this from a practical point of view. Recently I found a wonderful objectivist blog. It is Aurthur Silber's. I love it. But recently he has noticed a lot of anger within himself. Today he has written a little bit about it and why he believes that anger is a good Objectivist emotion. I would like to discuss anger as I see it, with babby Buddhist eyes and how I can comment on the Buddhist--Objectivist synthesis I have in mind using the topic of anger. I would like to say that Silber's is one of the best web logs. Furthermore, nothing in this web log is meant to suggest that repression of anger is a good thing.]

Has anyone ever noticed that objectivists are angry? One only has to look at Ayn Rand or Leonard Piekoff to see this. However, much more moderate lights have experienced anger. Anger is one thing that I believe that objectivism has a difficult time dealing with. In his weblog, Silber defends anger from an objectivist point of view. In it he basically says that there is an interrelationship between having values that one loves and being angry to see these values being destroyed by others. While this is a very plausable argument, I would begin by suggesting that there are other logical reactions to seeing one's treasured values being destroyed. One could logically be sad or mournfull. Or perhaps one could feel defeated or destroyed. Finally, one could feel motivated and empowered--with an increased energy and vigor on promoting those values or doing whatever is best to do so. Furthermore, I would suggest that a truely objectivist theory of emotions would promote responses fullfilling the following criteria:

(1) Consistency with the "benevolent universe premise"
(2) The least disruption to one's ability to continue in the persuit of one's values

In my opinion one of the larger points of Objectivism is the benevolent universe premise. Objectivism doesn't see life as a tragedy. Instead it is much more optamistic. Life is a success story. In my opinion, Objectivism holds that you should keep strong the belief that life is good and will work out. An angry response seems to be based on pesimistic or frustrated views. While anger should not be repressed and is certainly not immoral, it does indicate some opposition to the idea that life will turn out to be all well in the end. As an objectivish person, I believe that anger is opposed to the ideas of optamism and the benevolent universe.

Secondly, we want to promote one's ability to continue in persuit of one's own values. Anger does not do this. Anger clouds one's ability to reason clearly and makes it more difficult to successfully promote one's values. Furthermore, when one acts out of anger those around you will be less likely to respond well to your actions. As a Buddhist would put it, anger is unskilfull. It is a poor way of dealing with the world.

Anger and other "afflictive emotions" hold back one's ability to persue their values. The Objectivist ethics don't really deal much with emotions. There is no reference to anger, greed, envy, etc... . However, these emotions often lead to unskillful actions which frustrate happiness and effectiveness in pursuing one's goals and values. In my opinion, a more Buddhistic oriented theory of emotions will lead Objectivists to a happier, more fulfilling life, as well as one in which they use more skillful means in pursuing thier values.

This is of course not to say that afflictive emotions should be supressed. According to Buddhism there is also a "skillful" way to manage one's anger, to experience it without necessarily acting on it, and to deal with it.

I'm not really sure if this piece solved my goal of establishing some sort of sense in which a Buddhist-Objectivist synthesis would work. I only hope that I can slowly grope towards this.

2003-05-06T13:52:00.000-05:00

I found a new author to read. Crispin Sartwell. He is some strange combination of liberarian (as in the U.S.'s Libertarian Party) and anarchosyndicalist. Kind of bizarre you say. Well yes. But he is pretty cool if you ask me. His latest piece is about destroying the media industry. Not only is he very interested in anarchy, he is somewhat of an existentialist as well. Check out this very existentialist (yet half toung in cheek) piece about Al Gore as phenomenological nothingness where he concludes:

Consequently a vote for Al Gore is a vote not only against the universe in which we happen to find ourselves; it is a vote against the very possibility of any universe, of even a single merely possible lepton. A vote for Al Gore is a vote for the complete annihilation of all possible worlds.

And he isn't even talking about Gore's politics!

2003-05-06T13:39:00.000-05:00

Three exams down one to go. Woo hoo. I'm almost graduated

2003-05-02T15:42:00.000-05:00

Lame-Ass Doors Band

Last night on the "Late Late Show w/ Craig Kilbourne", the musical guest was "The Doors". Thats right The Doors. Staring orriginal Doors members Ray Manzeric and Robby Krieger. I don't know what happened to drummer John Denzmore. Of course Jim is dead.

But it was lame. The guy whose role it was to be Morisson was just boaring. He looked pretty much like the guy and he could sing nearly right. But his attitude. He was like "yea I'm Jim Morrison I'm cool". He sort of seemed to have a similar attitude to the 50 something orriginal members that were playing with him. He was just sort of there. I wanted him to be burnign with energy or maybe darkly disturbing, but he was just sort of there. What kind of Jim Morrison was that? Oh yea, and I heard he first made it big by dancing and showing off in tight leather pants. Where was that? Come on, give a show!

2003-04-20T02:57:00.000-05:00

More thoughts on zazen

I haven't been meditating much recently. Its hard at times.

But today, well, I think I may have the inspiration. OK, it was a cheap (impure?) inspiration. I was riding the streetcar to the quarter. On my way to a party. I saw this attractive girl. Damn, she even distracted my book (I was reading "Justice and its Surroundings" by Anthony DeJasay). Anyway, I asked myself "what attracts me to this person". And I determined it was her radiance, her happiness, etc......

Sadly, I doubt that I am radiant. Often at parties people tell me "why do you keep to yourself" or ask my why I look so uncomfortable. Of course I could tell them "because people are scarry" or "I am uncomfortable in social situations", but hey, why be open? Not like any of you are going to tell them, right (OK, I'm opening myself up here for a little unfortunate discovery). Anyway, I was wondering how I could have a happy attitude in social situations. Or any situation. It came to me. Zazen.

Some may be skeptical of this possability. I mean perhaps meditatin can bring enlightenment. But happiness in social situations??? It is possible. I will note that my friend, Charles Goodman, now on staff at the Philosophy Department at the University of Wisconsin is probably the most experienced meditator I know. I have seen him take pleasure in the most mundane things. He attributes it to meditation. I believe him.

Ther is only one hitch. You are not supposed to be trying to gain anything through meditation. As Shunryu Suzuki Roshi says in his famous book "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind": "[A]s long as you think you are practing zazen for the sake of something, that is not true practice". So maybe my efforts will fail.

But to take it a step further, why practice zazen. Because you want to sit on a cushion for hours on end? Is this really the search for oblivion?

2003-04-06T22:58:00.000-05:00

Finally I found a good Buddhist web log: The Buddha Project

2003-04-03T16:42:00.000-06:00

Whose song is this? I know Johnny Cash has sung it on a CD, but I don't think he was the first.

Well my name it is Sam Hall, it is Sam Hall
Yes my name it is Sam Hall, it is Sam Hall
My name it is Sam Hall
And I hate you one and all
And I hate you one and all, Damn your eyes

I killed a man they said
so they said
I killed a man they said so they said
I killed a man they said
And I smashed in his head
And I left him laying dead
Damn his eyes

But a swinging I must go I must go
A swinging I must go I must go
A swinging I must go
while you critters down below
Yell up Sam I told you so
Well damn your eyes

I saw Molly in the crowd, in the crowd
I saw Molly in the crowd, in the crowd
I saw Molly in the crowd and I hollered right out loud
Molly ain't you proud
Damn your eyes

The Sheriff he came too he came too
The Sheriff he came too he came too
The Sheriff he came too and said Sam how are you
I said Sheriff how are you
Damn your eyes

My name is Samuel, Samuel
My name is Samuel, Samuel
My name is Samuel and I'll see you all in Hell
I'll see you all in Hell
Damn your eyes

2003-04-03T16:32:00.000-06:00

Whats the point of this blog??? There are lots of things I just can't put up here. But they are some of the meat of my everyday life. Hmm......

2003-04-03T16:29:00.000-06:00

He Killed a Cop

The other day I went to the pardon board on behalf of my community service client. Wow. When I left I thought that the Pardon Board would be such a fun experience. No student with the Project for Older Prisoners program has been before the Pardon Board (as opposed to the Parole Board) for years. Sounds exciting, eh? Turned out to be a bust. The Pardon Board is waste of time. There is almost nothing you can say to sway them. They are almost always bound to deny pardon. They ask question that can't be answered. They would rather give lectures to the criminals about even thinking they might have a chance. OK, this is not what they said, but they might as well have, because that is obviously meant. In one moment of extreme absurdity, one man before the board, 80 years old in a wheelchair, hardly able to hold a micraphone or talk long enough to complete a sentence was give a lecture on how older people committ crimes too--and of course the idea was that yes even he was likely to still be a menace to society. Give me a break.

When somebody like that doesn't fare well before the pardon board, my client definately will fail. He was only 50 and in good health. But more importantly, he killed a cop. To be fair my client didn't know he was a cop. He thought the guy was just another drug customer. A mad drug customer, who pulled a gun on him. So he shot him. The pardon board, whose chairman was an ex-cop, forced off the force for misconduct no doubt, wan't interested in hearing about the distinction between killing a uniformed officer and a co-drugie who happened to be a cop in an undercover sting. I also thought that my guy was changed. He was clean. He had been in AA for about 10 years (in prison for 20). He no longer had any drug problems. He was a stand up prisoner--in fact he was considered one of the more model prisoners. But he lost. And I had sympathy for him. Stuck in jail for life.

But he killed a cop, right? Isn't it awefull for me to have sympathy for such a person? I think it might be. What to do?? Who knows?

2003-04-03T16:15:00.000-06:00

I found him by the railroad tracks this moarning
I could see that he was nearly dead
I knealt down beside him and I listened
Just to hear the words the dying fellow said

He said they let me out of Prison down in Frisco
For ten long years I paid for what I'd done
I was trying to get back to Loosiana
To see my Rose and get to know my son

Give my love to Rose
Please won't you mister
Take her all my money
Tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy that Daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose

Wont ya tell em I said thanks for waiting for me
Tell my boy to help his mom at home
Tell my Rose to try to find another
Cause it ain't right that she should live alone
Mister heres a bag with all my money
It won't last them long the way it goes
God bless you for finding me this morning
Now don't forget to give my love to Rose

Give my love to Rose
Please won't you mister
take her all my money
tell her buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy that daddy's so proud of him
Now don't forget to give my love to Rose

--"Give My Love to Rose", Johnny Cash

2003-03-25T13:09:00.000-06:00

Presentation:

I have a presentation tomorrow. I have to talk for an hour about commercial speech. I'm nervous.

I think the class will be against me. Well, I guess I hope so. I'm writing about why commercial speech should be protected under the First Amendment just as any other speech. Free the Marlbro Man and Joe Cammel and all that stuff. Let them walk around our TV Screens. If they want to. And yea, don't deny that smoking causes cancer. Because it does. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to say that smoking might not be such a bad thing. If they want. Its a free country, no?

2003-03-25T13:05:00.000-06:00

ZaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaZen

I want to write about zazen. Because, well, I enjoy it. Its hard to believe, no? Sitting on the floor. Counting breaths for 20 minutes once or even twice a day. OK, sometimes its not so fun. I mean, twenty minutes is a long long time. And I can get stir crazy sitting on the floor. But over all,. my experiences have been good.

Its about how you see the world. Everything seems much more clear and vivid. Day to day life comes alive. After zazen this moarning I rode my bike to school. Everything seemed much more real. I was more aware. I wasn't looking inside so much. No, I was looking outside.

Zazen can even change your understanding of things. This I used to scoff at. I mean come on. Why should your philosophical understanding change because you sit on the floor staring at the wall for 20 minutes? But I think it does. I can't really explain it. All I can say is that sitting on the cushion (OK, I use a bench, I can't get my legs into the lotus position) has, I think, placed me more in tune with some of the more nonsense-sounding of Zen teachings.

2003-03-25T12:57:00.000-06:00

Community Service:

Next Tuesday I am going to represent an inmate before the Pardon board--not the parole board--at Dixon prison. I'm looking forward to it, especially after I didn't get to represent anybody last time. Best of all, it is on a Tuesday, so I am pretty much conflict free!

2003-03-21T14:58:00.000-06:00

So I want to write something profound, something funny, or something interesting. But all I can think of is telling all of you (yes, my one loyal reader, you know who you are) all about my day. Or at least my moarning. I went out to do my community service with a group called POPS or Project for Older Prisoners (really, I don't think the "S" stands for anything). I was told about all the interesting things of prison, and how hard it would be to get in and on and on.

So we went to St. Gabriel Prison (Louisiana Women's Correctional Institution). We had no hassles with security. Our clients were another matter. One of them was removed from the docket. The other prisoner refused our services. Although she really didn't need them, it appears, she already had a pardon from the governor. All is well that ends well, at least for her. She will be leaving prison soon. We got to watch the hearings of a few prisoners, but it was pretty mild. Most of the people seemed to be there for possession of a narcotic of some sort. Most of them had family members to vouch for them. Most of them told a big long story of how they were reformed. And they probably were.

2003-02-23T14:35:00.000-06:00

Well, I haven't posted for a long time now. I'm not really sure what I want to use this for.

Oh, I don't know. Now I read something and feel all shitty. I have too much to do and too little interest in doing it. This sucks. Not sure I really want to write. I feel lonely. I feel sad. I feel scared of moving to New York. I feel scared of living in New York. I feel like my life will never be the way I want it. I feel like I don't have the time to do what needs to be done. I feel traped. I wish I had a car. I wish I felt more included. Life sucks.

Hows that for a posting?

2003-01-10T01:13:00.000-06:00

Is it just me, or doesthis map seem to suggest that "The United States" and "Detroit" are two seperate entities?

2003-01-10T00:18:00.000-06:00

And of course there are idiots on the right (see below for idiots on the left). Johna Goldberg claims that all opposition to war in Iraq is inherently pro-Sadam.

2003-01-10T00:11:00.000-06:00

Well it appears that Michael Moore is making news again. According to one columnist, Moore has gone on tour making fun of the people who resisted the 9/11 attacks from the hijacked plains. Basically he said they were white wimps and that if the plains had more black men all of the terrorists would have been killed en route. I can't believe that he would make such a stupid and obnoxious statement, especially after picking on the NRA for having held rallies right after school shootings in the towns where such shooting occurred. Yes, I think the "Lets Roll" popularity is a mite overdone, but gee, lets not make cracks against these people who died while taking terrorists down. It strikes me as blaiming the victim, no?

2003-01-08T13:01:00.000-06:00

Its the first day back at law school. So far I have had Business Enterprises II (BE2) and Law & Economics. My First Amendment seminar was canceled because, well, probably because the first class assignment is too involved for the first day back. The assignment is to read the recent cross burning case and then write a short commentary. If this case is anything like its predecessor, R.A.V., I have a lot of gobbelty gook ahead of me. Later on today I have Administrative Law with Prof. Diamond.

Law & Economics looks like it will be a good class. He asked about various people's motivations for taking the class. Interestingly, he didn't mention my motivation--basically that I think the heavy hitters among L&E scholars are gods among men and that their bent is usually my bent but better argued. On that topic, one sudent in the class suggested that we have taxation to pay for goods that couldn't be provided for privately like garbage collection. Give me a break. Personally, I'm not sure there are any public goods, but, if you are going to argue for their existence don't use the example of garbage collection--that is one I can defeat easily. Private waste removal is not an unusual practice. Just go down to the French Quarter in the moarnings and see it in action (explanation for the uninitiated: public services only removes a small amount of the trash from the French Quarter restaurants, as a result, private companies take care of the rest).

2003-01-07T01:21:00.000-06:00

According to Nietzsche; hatred, envy, covetousness, and the lust to rule are essential to life in general (See Beyond Good and Evil Part One Number Twenty-Three). One would assume he would then include these things as worthy of celebration in order to produce a vibrant and healthy society--and even perhaps produce the "overman". But what does this mean? How can hatred, envy, or covetousness produce good things in civilization? How can lust to rule be ever good at all? Actually of all those I hate "lust to rule" more than any other (as opposed to actual lust, which is not so bad er should be celebrated on this see Heather Corrina's Journal entry of January 2, 2003).

The Buddha on the other hand (in my opinion the only religious genious if one really ever existed) would condemn all of these things as bad. They represent a striving. Hatred or envy for example only produces unhappiness so they should be rejected. And I tend to agree with the Buddha on this.

Yet I have to say that I am quite fascinated with the idea of hatred, envy, etc... (while done in the right conditions) being something worth promoting. How can this bring forth the "overman"? This is almost as interesting as his concept of "master morality", rank, and those of a contemptable life.

There is so much that Nietzsche has of interest to say, yet in a lot of cases he seems to be wrong. :(

Actually it is quite ironic. He is not interested in what ideas are true but in what beliefs promote life and happiness. Yet the ideas he esteems probably promote unhappiness more than happiness.

2003-01-07T00:55:00.000-06:00

I forgot how good some of the old Johnny Cash songs were!

2003-01-07T00:53:00.000-06:00

Not that I really believe in not talking about politics or religion, but the below is still a good song:

2003-01-07T00:51:00.000-06:00

There once was a musical troupe
A picking singing folktroup
They sang the mountain balads and the folksongs of our land
They were long on musical ability
Folks thought they would go far
But political incompatability led to their downfall

Well he one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear
Was a methodist

This musical aggregation toured the entire nation
Singing traditional balads and folksongs of our land
They performed with great virtuosoity
And soon they were the rage
But political animosity prevailed on the stage

Well the one one the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear
Burned his drivers license

Well the curtain had ascended
A hush fell on the crowd
As thousands there were gathered to hear the folk songs of our land
But they took their poolitcs seriously
And that night at the concert hall
And as the audience watched delierously
They had a free for all

The one on the right was on the bottom
And the one in the middle was on the top
And the one the left had a broken arm
And the guy on his rear said oh dear

Now this should be a lesson
If you plan to start a folk group
Don't go mixin politics with the folksongs of our land
Just work on harmony and viction
Play your banjoe well
And if you have political convictions
Keep them to yourself

Well the one on the left works in a bank
And the one in the middle drives a truck
The one on the right is an all night DJ
And the one in the rear got drafted
--Johnny Cash

2003-01-03T00:22:00.000-06:00

Today I went to see "Gangs of New York". That too was a good movie--although not as good as "Lord of the Rings--The Two Towers" which I saw on New Year's Eve. But what I wanted to write about was one character--Butcher Bill. In some ways this man representes things I hate. Gansterism, violence, nativism, etc..... On the other hand he was nothing but a class act .

Butcher Bill had a sense of honor, bravery, cunning, and skill. The person he valued the most was his fiercest enemy: The Priest. There was something Nietzscheesque about him that should be honored. He saw the priest as his rival, but he did not seem to condemn him. The things you fear are not "bad" because you fear them. In fact the things that he decided were bad were bad not becasue he feared them but because he looked down upon them. The enemy coming to get him was not bad. The enemy coming to get him was revered and honored. This is noble.

2003-01-03T00:06:00.000-06:00

Yesterday night I saw "About Schmidt". It was a good movie, but I think the central premise was flawed. Basically it all revolved around the question of "does my life have value to other people". I think this is an aweful question to ask. Perhaps sinful. Fundamentally one should ask "does my life have meaning to me". Sure it is good that other people value your life, but primarily it must first have meaning to __you__. One should base one's life on one's own values and judgment. If one is constantly looking for valuation from other people, one is not independant or even seeking to be an individual. If one constantly needs others to value onself, there is definately a problem. This is an abdication of one's own moral responsability to creat one's own values.

2003-01-02T23:55:00.000-06:00

Oh my....Christmas is done and gone and I have so much to say. But first I will mention a great cigar I just had. It was an "Oliva" Cigar. Definately a brand to look into in the future.

2002-12-22T15:51:00.000-06:00

Got most of my shopping done! I got gifts for my mother, father, sister, and Uncle Brian. Only a few more to go!

2002-12-22T15:50:00.000-06:00

Let me try to explain what I was saying before about mental illness. As Thomas Szasz puts it "once we recognize that 'mental illness' is a metaphore for disapproved thoughts, emotions, and behavior, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry as well is to control thought, mood, and behavior." For more information on this argument you can check out Thomas Szasz's homepage.

In addition Reason magazine has published a nice review of a book by a different sometimes critic of psychiatry. Inside this review there is discussion of the recent investigation of the sanity of Zacarias Moussaoui relating to his trial. Apparantly his original defense attorneys (I think he rejects them now as part of a scheme to get him) believed he had some sort of paranoid psychosis. Some psychiatrists disagreed. Afterwords the judge hired more psychiatrists to continue investigations into the man's mental health. Moussaoui responded with a hand written motion suggesting that the judge had "acute symptoms of Islamophobia with complex gender inferiority." He recomended treatment at the UBL Treatment Center, claiming that UBL stands for "Unique Best Location" as opposed to Usama Bin Laden. In his own way he is making my point. Mental illness diagnosis has a strong tendancy to be dominated by social, economic, political, and moral factors.

2002-12-22T15:37:00.000-06:00

Aahh now I have all my exams done and am at home. Thank God!

2002-12-10T08:32:00.000-06:00

Exam number one coming up: First Amendment.

2002-12-10T08:30:00.000-06:00

I would like to clarify the previous post, because I have gotten some feedback on it. When I was a Catholic, it felt like disobedience of the Church or disagreement with one of her key teachings was just way too scarry to deal with. I still think it is. Perhaps in some ways, I think that this is one of the key failings of the church--that it scares people into agreement. It wasn't unitl I felt like the Church was wrong about her claims as to the nature god or the existence of hell (i.e. her most basic claims) that I could even allow myself to think that the Church could possibly be wrong about morality. I just have a hard time identifying with the idea of "Catholics for disagreement/disobedience of the Church". It seems kind of like "soldiers for disobedience of the army". I actually think that Catholics that can consider themselves pro-choice probably are pretty good people. At least they don't let the Church get in the way of making serious moral choices. They are probably the Catholics most worth supporting. But on the other hand, it is their sense of willfully making moral decisions in disobedience to some of the Church's most vigerous teachings--and yet professing to be loyal--that makes me feel like they don't take either their strong stand (pro-choice) against the teachings of the church or their support of the Church too seriously.

Perhaps I'm just mad that I believed that being a Catholic meant supporting the church in everything, but they don't. :(.

2002-12-06T18:53:00.000-06:00

Wow... this senate race is really heating up. I just saw the head of "Priests for Life" on TV basically saying that a Catholic politician must oppose all forms of abortion. This is serious. Of course, I think he is right--part of being Catholic is opposition to abortion (and birth control). Not that I think either of those things is bad, I just think that the two positions are contradictory.
But I really hope Marry looses. Besides opposing the beliefs of the religion she claims to uphod (and I used to uphold) she has been very deceptive.

2002-12-06T18:47:00.000-06:00

ER last night provided an interesting contrast in the way we treat people who allegedly have mental problems or are "freaks". One patient was a teenage boy who acted as (and wanted to be) a girl. His mother really didn't like this, and when his father died she cut his hair and transformed his girl identity to an clearly male one. She thought that he was a "freak" and had to be confronted. This transgendered patient was (intentionally?) contrasted with Abbey's brother who suffers from manic depression.
My general reaction to the transgendered situation was that the mother was clearly not acting properly by forcing her male son to act as a man. I generally think that if a person self identifies opposite to their equiptment, then they shouldn't be forced to act as their physical gender. It just doesn't seem appropriate to force him to be "male". On the otherhand, the situation between Abbey and her brother seems opposite. Abbey is made to look incrediby just in her attempts to force her brother to be treated for his inappropriate manic depressive nature.

This at first seems quite justified. After all, manic depression is considered a disease. People should be treated and their "problem" should be medically altered. But why? I decided to go back and read some articles by Thomas Szasz. He argues quite forcefully that depression is not a desease but a moral problem and that people should not be forced to alter there state. Depression, he argues, is a moral problem. I think he tends to be right.

Of course that doesn't mean that depression, manic or not, is just as good of a choice as transgenderedism. I actually have a lot of respect for transgendered people. I find issues, boundaries, and transgressions of gender quite interesting. Transgenderedism isn't immoral. Many different behaviors have been diagnosed in the past as diseases such as homosexuality and masturbation. We have used medical treatment against these behaviors in the past and I think that this was wrong. But really there is not any great medical difference between the above behavioral patterns and the ones we still diagnose. The only difference is that it is (correctly) not acceptable to call homosexuality a disease. But why should we be so confident that there is something clinically wrong with the depressed?

2002-12-03T22:17:00.000-06:00

Kathy and I are breaking up. I'm sad.

2002-11-25T21:48:00.000-06:00

Challange to Miranda Rights?

I just noticed (from reading Eugene Volokh of the "Volokh Conspiracy") that tomorrow the Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding a challange or perhaps the extension of Miranda Rights. Currently it is unconstitutional for the government to use testimony obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona in a trial. The new case, Chavez v. Martinez will consider the possability that it is unconstitutional to interrogate a suspect in violation of Miranda.

While it may seem like an irrelevant point or difference (because really, Miranda v. Arizona is not at issue), this is really an important point. If the Court declairs that interrogation in violation of Miranda is itself unconstitutional, then perhaps the biggest problem will be for the war on terror. Much interrogation to find information--information that could save thousands of people--will be declared unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the interrogation is constitutional, then we are faced with the problem of information constitutionally obtained will not be used at trial, and perhaps because of this people will go free (including terrorists).

I personally find myself internally hoping that such interrogation be deemed unconstitutional. But perhaps this is illmotivated. I find the U.S.A. Patriot Act and this year's incarnation of a homeland security bill to push the limits. Our criminal justice system has been inundated with increasing police powers. I would like to stem it off. But on the other hand, I think that this it would probably be bad not to interrogate when lots of people can be saved.

2002-11-15T21:48:00.000-06:00

I think modern religion is a negative force to society. I was watching a real life TV magazine where they depicted religious people where their religion lead them to force their young children to fast. They were emaciated. Then there is the whole thing about The Practice and the priest scandal--not to mention the Christian Science show.

The fact of the matter is religion short circuits the brain and prevents rational thinking. Look to the scandal regarding priests and sexual molestation. The point of the show was that there was a lack of outrage among the faithfull. The character "Eugene" thought that the current hierarchy was providing insuficient protection and response to abuse allegations. He further suggested that Catholics should dump the existing hierarchy and well, create a whole new structure.

What isn't acknowledged is that this isn't even an option. Obedience to hierarchy is required. The church tells you what is required to believe and do. Part of what it means to be Catholic is to be obedient and to trust Priests, Bishops, and the Pope. While it is clear that Catholics can criticize their leaders--they can't abandon them absent extreme circumstances (say an excomunicate Pope).

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps people can try the Pope or their bishops in some cannonical way. But it is not going to to happen. It is just the nature of religion, and the concept of "faith" which is contrary to "reason".

2002-11-15T21:28:00.000-06:00

I bought a new Vidal book, Creation. Its an interesting book regarding a (fictional?) Persian ambassador's travels to India, China (Cathay), and Athens. It also provides an alternative theory of Heroditus' histories. Its been a while since I read Heroditus (6 years), and I don't really remember reading it all too well (my TA didn't think I read it well either--my first "C"). But this is interesting. All of the historical characters so far (OK ony Thucydities and Heroditus) are shown as something other than the noble great people I remember learning of them as. The book presents the Greeks as not the originators of our civilization, very interesting!

2002-11-15T21:19:00.000-06:00

I'm still reading Gore Vidal. I finished The Golden Age. The book was good but ends, well, not with a bang but a whimper. It started great the middle was wonderfull and the end was lacking. Perhaps it was longer than it should have.

But the ideas it presented were interesting. Of course, FDR's goal of prevoking the Japanese is something that I am an old hand at. Stinnet's Day of Deciet theory that FDR's knew Pearl Harbor was coming is not nothing new either. But it was interesting to see it all played out. The large influence of British "intelligence's" attempts to covertly get us into war was not surprising. Even so, it was really exciting to see everything transpiring from behind the scenes. Perhaps what I was most unfamiliar with was the scense regarding Trueman. I never realized how wrong the beginings of the cold war just might have been (although I'm sure the cold war was unnecessary....Russia defeated itself).

2002-11-15T21:08:00.000-06:00

Why do I keep buying Trycicle (a Buddhist magazine)? I don't know. There is nothing great or exciting about it. I just want to develop my practice (zazen meditation). But it never neems to take too well.............

2002-11-15T21:05:00.000-06:00

Ah screw it. I'm not going to go through with this. Its too much.

De Jasay still rocks.

2002-11-07T12:51:00.000-06:00

de Jasay's first axiom of choice: Individuals Can, and Onley They Can, Choose

To make this work, of course, he must qualify this to a considered choice. Groups can not make a considered choice because while a group can deliberate or debate, a group cannot consider....i.e.only individuals have minds. In a sense groups can make "choices", but they are only the outcome of a number of indivudal choices. "To ask why, given the physical environment, a certain state of affaires prevails, is ultimately to ask why individuals choose it; the laws of historical development or the dynamics of class and race do not explain it. Finally, de Jassay talks about a desire for responsability and how coercion dilutes the responsability. "Only the absence of coercion allows responsability for one's actions to remain intact".

This axiom he calls the "individualism axiom". I prefer to think of it as the "responsability axiom". Why was this axiom included? One can presume that he includes it because of a focus on responsability. But why an emphasis on responsability? Is it possible that consaquences are more important than responsability? Does responsability presume free will? Or are we talking of a different kind of responsability? Furthermore, it would seem absurd to rip a person outside of his consequences.
Besides the questioning of the importance of responsability, one can also question the issue of coercion. Does coercion really reduce responsability? According to Sartre, all of one's actions are chosen. If one is in a POW camp it is because one chose to be i.e. by not committing suicide. Furthermore, choices are limited. If a person purchases a Gateway computer, one cannot say that they also chose the Windows operating system because if you purchase a Gateway, you get Windows regardless. Yet you really can't say there is coercion operating. One may not

2002-11-07T12:31:00.000-06:00

Recently I have been reading bits and pieces of the work of Anthony de Jasay. Who is de Jasay? De Jasay is an obscure author of political and social philosophy. He has various wonderful books including Against Politics and The State. Right now I picked up Choice, Contract, Consent: A Restatement of Liberalism. In this book he puts forward six basic principles with which classical liberalism can be upheld. Actually, I think the movement from six pretty bare principles to a strong coherent philosophy is interesting. It is a deontological work, which I tend not to like, yet he can pull this kind of thing off well. Since I don't feel like writing about much else right now, I think I will start outlining this structure now and share my views.

2002-11-05T15:47:00.000-06:00

Comments on cultural objectivism:

Have you ever read a political or moral commentary where one principle is used to describe every ethical or political situation imaginable? Rothbardians tend to do this with the principle of non-agression. However, looking into this Objectivist commentary on the family we see a much more stupid line of thought: explaining the whole of family relationships based on the "trader principle" i.e. that all relationships should be even trades between people.

While there is nothing wrong with the trader principle, I think that some relationships may not need a trade (even if it is an "I value you because you value other things that I also value" type arangement). There may be a perfectly plausable reason for considering some family structures not based on trades or even shared values appropriate. Certainly the larger the family (and perhaps the more open styled relationships i.e. considering "friends" as a type of "larger family") and its extension and mutual aid are a good thing. In fact, I think that the objectivist idea of how relationships are structured may not be totally appropriate, at least not for all relationships.

Now I think about it, the Objectivist theory of trades and valuing friends based on shared values actually conveys a lot of valuable ideas. However, there are problems applying it family relationships. I think that there is a value to close families and enduring familial relationships even between people who have very little in common. There has to be better theories for these relationships. Furthermore, cohesive extended families tend to be more sufficient, better able to deal with hard times, better able to help others. Certainly if families took care of themselves, we would have much fewer social problems than we do have today. However, like I said above, family should not necessarily mean "blood relative" and should also include vast and amorphous networks of others, especially friends.

2002-11-05T15:25:00.000-06:00

Goddam! Libertarians for moral purity??

The Objectivist Center's Rodger Donoway has written The Importance of Blacklisting, where he defended an employer for terminating an employee because the employee was running for mayor as a communist.
Hmmm.... well, I don't know what to think of that issue in particular. I can see why one would want to reject communism and actually to do what one can to prevent its spread. But I also see the value in keeping ideas and serious intelectual trends around. There is some definate value to that

But then Donway takes a swing at all people he finds immoral. He really thinks that libertarians should adopt the burgeoise value system in total. Any other system, of course, is destructive to self and society. Can you add any more bullshit.

For a long time I have been looking at different stylings of libertarianism. In many ways objectivism, especially the more one applies the theory to new and unthought of situations is a good idea. However, this just seems wrong.

2002-10-31T22:53:00.000-06:00

Last night I went to the Hornets home opener. Basketball returns to Nawlins....yay!!!

They did a really great job with the celebration. And we won!! I can't remember enjoying basketball so much.

2002-10-31T22:16:00.000-06:00

This is really sad. Michael Cloud, a libertarian candidate for Senate in Massachusetts is going on a hunger strike for media access. Blah. Blah. Blah. What a lousy way to get attention. I have listened to Mr. Cloud's tapes on convincing people of libertarian ideas. He is against shocking people. Well, it appears that he isn't against stupid attempts to get attention. Of course this isn't surprising, noting his connection with Harry Brown, the Slick Willy (or Tricky Dick) of the LP.

Here is the article where they talk about it.. Note that this article wrongly states that he was Brown's running mate in '96. He wasn't. That was Jo Jorgenson. (Just say Jo!)

2002-10-26T21:02:00.000-05:00

More on the Writings of Gore Vidal

I have been reading Sexually Speaking by Gore Vidal. This is wonderful stuff. It is quite extraordinary.

One of the most interesting aspects is the article Sex is Politics. In this article Vidal discusses the politics of family values. According to his theory, the theory of family values began with more industrial interests. As long as an employee has a family, they have more to loose from being unemployed. Ergo, employees that have families are more docile than single employees. Hence, independant career women who raise a child as well as homosexuals are a threat to industrial interests because they tend to break up the pattern of high school/college age marriage. This is an incredibly interesting theory. I think there is some truth to it. But I think it is perhaps too simple.

As described possibly most famously by Albert Jay Nock, government and social power are at odds. As government provided more and more assistance to individuals, family assistance declined. Inversely, the more people who take care of their friends and families, the less government will even have the oppertunity to force strangers to take care of them. The decline of families leads to individual helplessness in the face of the many trials and tribulations of life. As families take care of themselves less and less, the more it becomes the domain of the government and social planners. This leads directly to the expansion of the power of the government--a power which is inevitably abused. However, I don't think that the support of stronger family ties does not conflict with Vidal's opposition to the "family values" crowd, as I think that families can take on many shapes and forms. Individualization, the advent of the career woman, and the prominance of childless homosexuality need not lead to atomization (which after all is what a powerfull government wants--atomized individuals that they need the government more, and are easier to control)--but new and more complex and intertwined forms of families.

Furthermore, I believe that families need not be authoritarian even though the rearing of young chilldren probably needs to be.

2002-10-26T20:36:00.000-05:00

This afternoon Gerarda Walsh was nice enough to drive me off to a wonderful party off at Dan's parents house. It was really nice. We had Fried Turkey and home brewed Pumpkin Ale. Good times were had by all on the North Shore.

2002-10-26T20:34:00.000-05:00

Stephen Pinker

Yesterday I went to a talk by Stephen Pinker regarding his new book on the myth of the "Blank Slate". It was quite good. He went through several different theories of human nature: "The Blank Slate", "The Noble Savage", and "The Ghost In the Machine". He then demonstrated why all of these theories are incorrect. He proceeded to explain why he thinks there is a definite human nature. Unfortunately he did very little in the way of describing what that human nature might be.

He did speak on one topic in particular, though. He described how a scientific theory of human nature can advise people interested in how to raise children. Well, basically he said it doesn't. While many are interested in these theories that say spanking makes children violent, none of these studies deals with the genetic predisposition of children. He went on to describe how identical twins seperated at birth are incredibly similar, having many of the same personality traits. Violence is one of them. Furthermore, he suggested that the best environmental factors that lead kids to run into conflict with the law are within the local neighborhood culture the child grows up in and whether or not the local kids are violent or lawbreakers.

The talk was very good, yet I have left it with very little indication of what Mr. Pinker is claiming that human nature is.

2002-10-24T00:01:00.000-05:00

Very Cool: Gore Vidal
Recently I have been reading Vidal's book The Golden Age. It is an interesting idea. It places various fictional(?) theories on secret political interactions of the men behind the scenes. The idea is quite insidious. It suggests various different theories of World War II and how the US, as an isolationistic nation, supported Roosavelt and his many different invitations to war. Part of this interest was supported by my interest in antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo (of "gay men for Buchanan" fame). The book even features some ideas regarding World War II that I have read in Raimondo's column suggesting the idea that Japan, for the most part, was not the evil empire that most American's think it to be. And of course (although I haven't gotten to it yet) I'm sure that the book will get to, suggesting that FDR had purposefully provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor.

But onto Vidal. There is a great webpage chock full of Vidal information. The best part was tapes of a 1968 debate between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley. Check it out. IT is greaaaaaaaaat.

Perhaps what the most interesting part of the above debate, and actually topical, is a discussion of whether or not we should have bombed the nuclear plants of the Red Chinese while they were developing their first bombs. Unsuprisingly, Vida was against it and Buckley was for it.

2002-10-23T23:46:00.000-05:00

Conversations From the Streetcar

Me: What do you think of Harry Potter, Sister

Annonymous Nun: I don't know, I haven't finished it yet

Me: I heard it was on the Index of Forbidden Books

Annonymous Nun: I once read that it was satanic and deals with witchcraft and such. I don't know. I have to read it for a class at Loyola

I wanted to talk further, but she didn't seem too interested in dealing with the issue of the index of forbidden books. Of course this doesn't exist anymore. I think it was silly, people who don't read things because they are scarred it could change their mind. Nonsense. I also think the idea of Harry Potter as satanic is silly. But oh well. My mother has a story of reading a forbidden book in high school, she was shamed for reading The Catcher in the Rye. Scarry stuff this book banning.

2002-10-21T00:29:00.000-05:00

Affirmative Actction for Men???

60 Minutes had a segment talking about the predominent success of women over men in elementary, secondary, college and even graduate education. It is pretty amazing to think about. Medical schools and now even law schools are graduating classes of as much of a 60/40 women/men ratio. One statistician says that if this gender trend continues, by 2060 there could be very few men in college at all. Of course, this prediction is somewhat dubious, at least to the idea of a "last man" in college by 2064. However, I think the concept of an increasing trend for women in white collar jobs and men in blue collar jobs is probably correct.

The trend is certainly taken seriously by college administrators, who try to maintain a 50/50 gender ballance. That is, they covertly adjust admission standards to maintain a gender ballance. This is somewhat perverse. I think that the problem for women is not in education, but is in the workplace and society in general. By forcing the issue in education we apparantly have short changed young males. It just doesn't solve the long run problem, except perhaps by keeping men out of the workplace. Yes there are problems, but the solution can't be by furthering the attack at the educational levil. That problem is over.

But lets not go too far. Affirmative action for males is overdone. We shouldn't want it. Instead we should encourage males as we do females to succeed.

2002-10-17T12:35:00.000-05:00

Today in First Amendment Law we talked about an cases regarding protesting at abortion clinics. I know this will sound kind of funny to some of you, but I have to say that sometimes I admire those guys. I remember when I was all "pro-life". The cause seemed like the "right" one to protest. After all, most pro-lifers actually think of abortion as murder. Somehow that has worn off on me. Yet I still see people having, say, a Rosary outside of a clinic or even the politest of the "sidewalk counselors" as heroic. As long as they are doing it the right way i.e. no intimidation or in-your-face fetuses or anything like that. Just pro-life people attempting to convince people who might be on the fence or perhaps have been intimidated into getting an abortion to support people to turn away from that option.

Yet the cause doesn't resonate with me anymore. I don't know why, but convincing people not to have abortions doesn't sound exciting. Maybe its the whole really-being-pro-choice-now thing. But what can I protest? On social issues I am becoming more liberal, yet I don't fit in with the "meat is murder" protestors or any other radical leftist cause. Well, I guess there is a war coming up. Lets hope not. I'd rather not have to protest that!

2002-10-17T02:40:00.000-05:00

I'm affraid I am becoming a snob of sorts.Last time I had Tea at PJ's, I checked the label on the old Earl Gray. I said to myself, "this doesn't taste like Earl Grey Tea". I checked the label. It was mixed by PJs. I knew it wasn't Twinnings of London. I suppose if it isn't good enough for the Queen, it isn't good enough for me!

2002-10-17T02:36:00.000-05:00

I think I am going to be sick. Recently I have been reading Grutter v. Bollinger, the Affirmative Action case regarding admissions to the University of Michigan Law School. Right now all we have is the 6th circuit decision--the Supreme Court has yet to even accept the case. Just to read the description that U of M gives to its policy is a disturbing experience. The University prefers minority students to promote diversity. Furthermore, it promotes some non-minorities of exceptional experience if that experience adds to the Universitie's diversity. The examples that they provide are obtaining a physics P.H.D., obtaining a medal at the Olympics, or being a Vietnamese Boat Person. So basically they are saying that the increased value of being black is equivolent to the increased value of being an Olympic Medalist or a Vietnamese Boat Person. This is ludicris.

But oh Mike, this must be some exaggeration you say. Nope. All you have to do is look at the statistics. For example, while majority applicants with a gpa of 3.35 and an LSAT of 165 had a 20% shot of admission. Minority applicants had an 80% chance of admission. If you look at it a different way, a minority with a low B/high C was treated roughly equivolent to a non-minority applicant with an A; a minority applicant that scored 156 on the LSAT (70 percentile) is treated as a non-minority applicant who scored 167 (96 percentile). While I can understand and even applaud race as a "plus" factor, it would have to be much much less of a plus.

2002-10-14T01:37:00.000-05:00

I consider myself to be both Buddhist and Objectivist influenced, but are they really compatible? One way I analyze this is in terms of practical and psychological theory. According to Nathaniel Branden (the lead Objectivist psychologist), the prime emphasis of his life is to teach people that their life is important, that they should honor it and fight for their highest possabilities. On the other hand, Buddhism doesn't seem to advocate fighting for anything. Instead one should be detached from the results of one's actions.

I was thinking about this the last few days (I am re-reading Branden's The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. After a while I noticed that the above analysis is dead wrong. Buddhism does in fact advocate fighting for a specific type of life. This is actually one of the paradoxes of Buddhism: one is to fight for the calm, stable, peaceful life.

The problem is what in fact we are fighting for. According to Objectivism, embedded in the premises, is the description of life that is worth fighting for. To be honest, it is one of (as Mark Epstein would say) of spiritual accumulation. It is a world of work and love (and oh yea, friendships--but Objectivist literature keeps this one hush hush). On the other hand, Buddhism strives for a life of solitude, solidity, and perminance. It is a detached spiritual point of view. Even this is not about spiritual accumulation, because it all centers on the moment.

Nevertheless, in the end I see it as somewhat the same. A detached Buddhist has immense amounts of "self esteem". They exhibit what Branden lists as the six pillars of self esteem, or at least five of them. In the end I have to champion both descriptions of the good life.

2002-10-13T18:17:00.000-05:00

test

2002-10-13T17:34:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I saw "White Oleander". This was a quality movie that I would not recomend. Why don't I recomend it? Because it is incredibly depressing and just sucks you dry. Don't watch it. However, it was done well. It was believable and the acting wasn't bad. Unfortunately the movie I really wanted to see has already left town.

2002-10-13T17:32:00.000-05:00

Thank god. I have finally learned of the one true religion.

2002-10-13T17:31:00.000-05:00

Are elections democratic? Not according to the Athenian Model of Democracy. They chose their legislature by drawing straws. According to this Greek model, the USA would be a moderate oliagarchy, because money has such an influence on elections. Perhaps somebody should call John McCain. Its too bad, if he were interested in something other than incumbant protection (because after all, that is what campaign finance laws are really about), he might like the idea.

2002-10-08T12:21:00.000-05:00

Well, there is another reason to go home early and often.Canada is considering the decriminalization of pot. Yay for them! It is time a North American nation consider a sane policy!

2002-10-08T12:15:00.000-05:00

Indian names are fun. Last night I was reading a case where the defendant's name was "Old Chief". Apparantly, he shot a man named "looking calf". However, I really felt sorry for the witness, named "Everybody Talks About".

2002-10-07T14:59:00.000-05:00

Here I was, an innocent bystander, looking up a book written by Kevin Phillips (Author of an article in The American Conservative) on "wallstreet socialism".......and what do I get???? Well, I found the book on amazon.com all right, but they said that readers of this book also recomend Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. Blech.

2002-10-05T19:03:00.000-05:00

Who am I? Who should I be?
Sometimes I think that I would like to be a country boy. Be able to hunt and fish and feed myself. Have wide open spaces. I get into these mood after watching something like Sweet Home Alabama or listening to A Country Boy Can Survive. But really, thats not me. I couldn't live in the country. How would I watch foreign films? Who would i talk to when I want to talk about most things that are relevant to me (philosophy, politics, etc....).
Other times I think I would like to be more of a "gentleman" or perhaps "aristocratic". I am attracted to virtue ethics supporting benevolence, courage, honesty, loyalty, etc... I also admire the "aristocratic tastes". Kind of like Hanibal Lector (at least from the second movie--I never saw Silence of the Lambs without the canibalism or Taki without the, well, the conservative excess. But this really isn't me either. Well, I suppose it could be someday. Maybe more in the flavor of a zen sage. That would be something. Finally, I have now started wondering about being a little more alternative. I am begining to see more value in socialist anarchists. I am begining to see more value in what I will call an alternative lifestyle. Piercings, tatoos, different music. No this is not me at all. But I think I want to be free to any and all possibilities..........

I think I'm becoming free.

2002-10-05T18:48:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting piece out there about religion and liberal society. Basically it said, paradoxically, that Christianity supports liberalism and liberalism sprung out of Christianity. This is funny, because religion--especially Christian religion--is illiberal. Furthermore, strong support of one ends up killing the other.

Yet there is something here. Liberalism is inherently western. Not that there are not non-western societies that we can't learn from. However, I think most of religion is wrong. Furthermore, I think that supporting religion because it reigns in people's vices is completely wrong. As often as not, religion supports positive evils, like slavery, racism, and absolute monarchy. Furthermore, I think a good part of religious morality is off. Especially, the sex stuff. I don't know. I can see why some morality to restrain vices is good, but can't we find a morality more supporting of the political order? I hope so!

2002-10-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

You know what would be good right now?? A cigar. A fine cigar. No, not one of those Macanudos or Fuentes, something hard core, and Maduro. Perhaps an Ave Maduro. Or perhaps an Ashton Maduro. Or perhaps just a Partagas Black label. Of course, a Cuban would be nice too!

2002-10-05T18:34:00.000-05:00

Last night Kathy and I went to seeThe Tuxedo. It was OK. I enjoyed it. I still want to see The Piano Teacher. We also went out to Semolina's. Mmmm good. I have to learn how to cook filet Diane!!

2002-10-05T18:30:00.000-05:00

The good, the bad, and the ugly of THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE

I highly anticipated this magazine, and in some respects, it holds up. In others, of course, it doesn't (it is a conservative rag after all!).

What is best about this magazine is that it takes to task most of the modern conservative movement for its major flaws. Most notably, it takes conservatives to task for supporting war on all of the middle east. After the War, by Pat, hashes out a number of possible scenarios for what will happen after we take Baghdad. Not pretty. In fact, reading this article radicalized my oposition to war fever. Has anybody even thought how a war in Iraq could catapult the whole middle east into one huge war zone? As Buchanan states it, attacking Iraq will probably cause a jihad from "Morocco to Malaysia". Justin Raimondo, in Now Entering Imperium, points out that leading conservatives, in private, hope that the war will extend to Saudi Arabia and even Egypt. This is quite disturbing. Even better, in Iraq Invasion: The Road to Folly, Eric Margolis points out that North Korea and Iran are bigger threats to the US than Iraq--but of course Iraq has all the oil, and a bigger Isreali pay off.

But the best article of all was Kevin Phillips Why I am No Longer A Conservative. This article kicked ass! It points out some of the biggest problems of modern conservatives: wall street socialism and a incredibly reckless foreign policy that, as he put it, "makes Barry Goldwater look like Mohatma Gandhi". Unfortunately he seems somewhat muddled. He can't really explain the corporate problems well, and he ends up supporting John McCain, who of course makes President Bush look like Mohatma Gandhi. However he makes a killing in some directions that I have been pushing: basically that free market advocacy usually turns a complete blind eye to the subsidization of big businesses, and thus is more like socialism for the rich!

And now, the bad. Yes, it had to be there. First off is a review of Garry Wills liberal Catholic books. So why does every conservative magazine have to come out bitching about liberal Catholics??? I think it is a stale point, Garry Wills be damned. Then there are the immigration pieces. Peter Brimlow gives a rave review to Michell Malkin's book on how American Immigration policy lets lots of bad people in. Well, yea, but all in all, Brimlow doesn't make the case too well, and comes on too strong. There are other bits about immigration here and there. Also, and this of course isn't an editorial problem, but the ad for Buying American seems more like scare tactics than anything else.

Finally, there is the ugly. This is actually sad, because I was really begining to think of Taki as cool. He writes about immigration and says this:

My main aim [as far as the immigration debate goes] is to remind Americans that since we are predominantly a white society rooted in Christianity, our responsability to immagrants is to bring them into our culture, not the other way around. If we have open borders, then we will be like Brazil in no time....

I have to disagree with this stance. I think that having a plethora of cultures interacting is positive. I think that there are many aspects of other cultures that could be helpfull to America. Furthermore, I don't see what being white has to do with anything. Nor do I see what being Christian has to do with anything, perhaps because I no longer consider myself so. I would agree that there are some cultural values that need to be supported. I do see that there is something uniquely western about American Democracy. On the other hand, I don't see how excluding others will help that. I actually think it is funny, well, because focusing on the cultural aspects conservatives seem to take a funny focus. They prefer Eurpoeans. But what is Europe? c,Decadent, liberal, socialistic, etc........ And they seem to disfavor Mexicans. Mexicans? I thought those were the hard working conservative Catholics. And what is Buchanan & Taki's problem with them again????

2002-10-03T14:55:00.000-05:00

It seems like a good year for the Federalists. We are going to have a number of speakers. Furthermore, we are going to Notre Dame for the student symposium on Natural Law. Perhaps a good number of us will go. It will be lots of fun.

2002-10-03T14:54:00.000-05:00

I went to the bar last night with the Federalists. That was pretty fun. I met some new members. They are all pretty nice. Some are a wee bit too interested in election mechanics and the personality aspect of politics, but I won't hold it against them. Gerarda was pretty nice, but she strangely had some tremendous attitude swing and went from party nut to going home early out of being tired in about five minutes. I have to say that I know most of the people there a good deal better. I also learned that the Margarita's at The Superior Grill kick your ass, at least when they are three for the price of one---at a price of one for $5.25. Also, we met some nice Masters students in Latin American Studies at the Balcony Bar.

2002-10-03T14:49:00.000-05:00

Hurricane Lilli. No big dea. Wind comes in. Wind comes out.

2002-10-03T14:48:00.000-05:00

I just heard the new Dixie Chick CD which I bought a while ago for Kathy's Birthday. Its pretty good. I like.

2002-09-30T17:37:00.000-05:00

Check out Justin Raimondo's new colum at Antiwar.com. It makes me want to rush out to Boarders and by a copy of Pat & Taki's new magazine!

2002-09-30T17:08:00.000-05:00

Sweet Home Alabama
Last night Kathy and I went to see this movie. It was pretty good and quite funny. It seems to present the main character's personality as quite dichotomous-- she is two very different people. She is a sleek fashion designer in New York, and when she returns home (for the first time in years) she is a down home sothern girl. Now I think about it, instead of all of that drama between the two different guys, I would like to have seen a little more of how she integrates both New York fashion queen with southern rebel girl. It really doesn't show this, and it seems like she could have just cut the fashion business out of her life. I don't see why she would do this. Was being with her first bf inconsistant with being part of the New York fashion scene? Was her life in NY really all a lie? It seems to me that she somehow should have integrated the two. Of course, it really wasn't about what type of person she was, no, that is The Banger Sisters. It is about who is she going to mary, childhood sweet heart or New York politician. But her personality seemed so different in both places, and she seemed to really like New York. Of course the movie couldn't end with her taking two husbands. That would be rediculous. Not to mention illegal and by society's standards, immoral. I'm not sure either of those guys would have been two thrilled, and I am sure Candice Bergman's character would have had a coronary at the suggestion. Actually, that would have been interesting!.

2002-09-30T16:54:00.000-05:00

Damn! I lost a post on the flag. Basically, I wrote that the flag stood for a lot of things, both good and bad. What does it mean to you? What does this nation mean to you? Have we swerved from our orriginal path of great ideals? In some ways I think so. Gun control, the drug war, rediculous taxation, and a millitary interventionism all indicate this. Have we made a more full and consistant practice of our ideals? I think in some respects this is the case as well. The end of slavery, Jim Crow, greater acceptance of minorities and "deviant" yet non-violent and non-coercive practices all indicate this. Somehow the flag seems to be both a symbol of good and bad things.

This ties in to some controversey regarding a country song, I believe the title is "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue." I really don't know what to think of this. It celebrates "kicking ass" as the American Way. Well, I suppose it is. I can identify wars where "kicking ass" should be the American way: wars like the Revolution, the war of 1812, and maybe even the Civil War (really don't ask me about this, I think both sides represented a conglomeration of valid points, I am glad that slavery was defeated yet sad the South lost). But most other wars we have fought in were really wars of conquest: The Mexican War, The Spanish-American War, even the Gulf War I and intervention in the Balkins were not about national defense but (in my opinion) the expansion of global empire.

So this brings me to where I stand. Kicking some terrorist ass. Good. Finishing off Sadam (because after all, he tried to Kill George Bush I) probably bad(Check "The Volich Conspiracy for arguments that fighting Iraq is about national defense--even though I tend to think it may be more about expansion/preserving Empire).

2002-09-30T16:41:00.000-05:00

Romancing the Republic: The Grand Jury
Even though I have some preference for a more, um, non-territorial concept of governance (i.e. what is generally called "Anarco-capitalism" and involves representatives who do not represent a territory but groups of individuals, and the way to get a representative is to buy one), I think that there is a certain romance to some of our historical "republican" instituions. One of the "romantic" concepts, in my opinion, is "fully informed juries" (a code word for juries who know how to nullify the law). Another one of those concepts is the Grand Jury. This institution once was considered a shield between an accused person and the prosecution.
The problem is that today it doesn't do this. It was once said that an average prosecutor could use a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwitch". Grand jury proceedings are controlled by the prosecutor. The accused does not get to testify or present exculpating information unless the prosecutor wants. The accused does not get to have any representation at all before the grand jury. I think that if we want to invegorate the criminal justice system, this should be changed.
Furthermore, grand juries once acted as a "sword" by investigating whomever they wanted for whatever reason regardless of the prosecutor's own ideas. Grand juries once were known to indict people not presented to them by the prosecutor, including corrupt government officials and others. These juries were sometimes known as "runnaway grand juries". However, they served a purpose. In my opinion, something has to be done to make grand juries the effective tools they once were!

2002-09-30T16:30:00.000-05:00

I would like a DayQuil and Tonic with that
Still have this stupid cold. And its soooooo cold here in the law school!

2002-09-29T18:03:00.000-05:00

I have a new favorite blog! Jesse Walker's blog is great. I first encountered his writings in Sam Konkin's "left libertarian" email list. Then I noticed he writes for reason. He is something of an "anarco-capitalist" but seems to have more non-capitalist anarchist leanings than most of the an-caps. He is a good read. Check out his recent writings somewhat sympathizing with the demonstrators at the most recent "international trade management seminars".

2002-09-29T17:41:00.000-05:00

Recently I have been reading a book on Zen (or more acurately, Chan because the book is written from a Chinese perspectiv). I like it very much. It is called "Hoofprints of the Ox" and is by Master Sheng-Yen. It is better than many zen books. First of all, most zen books seem to come from a focus on Soto zen, and emphasize the "just sit" perspective. Sitting is important, but is it the only important aspect of Zen? I think not. Other books on Zen are a bit too complex to begin with. "Zen Flesh, Zen bones" has a real appeal, but just presenting a number of koans to somebody who doesn't yet get it is not productive. I don't get it yet.

"Hoofprints of the Ox" is quite different. It provides a good amount of information many very different perspectives of Zen. Of course it talks alot about sitting and "silent illumination". Furthermore, it gives a very good explanation of the koan and the Huatow. Furthermore, it places Zen in the context of Buddhism. Unfortunately, many writings on zen will give the idea that zen can be almost completely divorced from Buddhism. Not so here. I think that "Hoofprints of the Ox" is perhaps the best book to impart a begining understanding of Zen Buddhism and a nice "how to" on begining practice.

2002-09-29T17:32:00.000-05:00

Last night, Kathy and I watched "Gossford Park". What a boaring movie! It was way too long and the different sub-plots were way to scattered and actually quite unimportant, except as a distraction to finding the real killer. Only, they gave away some of the biggest secrets as to who the real killer would be way too early! If you look back they pretty much gave away the biggest conflict from the begining. Perhaps I just found all the other plot lines revolving around other potential killers too unimportant to really give much creedance. This movie was pretty boaring.

2002-09-29T17:23:00.000-05:00

I am sick and tired of having a cold!

2002-09-29T17:20:00.000-05:00

Dissapointing! Mr. Hasnas' review of anti-discrimination principles, while enlightening from a 14th amendment prospective, just doesn't deal with how anti-discrimination fits in with libertarian legal or moral philosophy! I just can't seem to make it work. While this is throughly frustrating, I'm sure the problem won't go away. I think it has to do with competing values that I actually hold, and the slim theory that Rothbard came up with just doesn't cut it. It doesn't really take any account into how his political structure deals with a larger moral system, or what that system would be like. Oh well.....
On the up side, reading (parts of) this (100 page) work gave me some clarity. It demonstrated to me at least why an "anti-oppression" principle is better than an "anti-distinction" principle. To explain, an anti-distinction principle declares that you can't make distinctions based on anything irrelevant to job performance; an anti-oppression principle says that you can't make distinctions between races only when the distinction is oppressive. I think this is preferable. This is because I definately don't think that the government should be able to prosecute you for employing, say, only your family, or perhaps law school buddies, if they are not the best qualified. This seems "non-oppressive". Furthermore, excluding white people because of their race is not always oppressive. I'm not sure if it can be oppressive, although, many times it seems unwise or perhaps not in one's own best interest. Anyway, I'm sure there will be more to come.

2002-09-28T17:47:00.000-05:00

I have just noticed that the below noted John Hasnas' has wrote a paper on the philosophical basis of anti-discrimination law. This will be interesting. I have often had a hard time dealing with this from strict libertarian theory (see below)--so I will have to read and perhaps report back.

2002-09-28T17:43:00.000-05:00

What would a system of "libertarian law" look like? This is something I have sometimes wondered. A few years back I was captivated by John Hasnas' critique of modern legal systems in toto. Basically he writes that there can be no way to interpret the constitution clearly. That is to say that you cannot interpret the first amendment's free speech clause without, well, putting your own spin on it. You may say that art should be considered speech, or perhaps you consider actions speech, or whatever. There are no ways to interpret the word "speech" non-politically. You just can't. He concludes that it would be better if courts devolved, for the most part into semi-anarco-capitalist insurance agencies (with the US government overriding them when certain problems appear). (note: his web page linked above contains all of his works).

This solution seems unlikely. I think he is correct. However, I still think that the constitution is important--interpreted under the light of the orriginal meaning. This may seem somewhat contradictory. I know, it is. You can't have a non-political interpretation of the constitution. Nevertheless, I also think that the constitution is the only thing holding down our freedoms. The first amendment, the second amendment, the fourth amendment (not to mention the fourteenth amendment) all provide important protections--and in the real world it is judges and justices using the constitution and interpreted doctrine that actually keep some (unfortunately not all) of these freedoms in operation. Recently I have read Randy Barnett's "An Originalism For Non-Originalists". This is a very good work. It basically says that one of the ways to recognize a government's legitimacy is to look to a constitution and see how the constitution comports with natural law. And of course, in order for the constitution to be valid it must be followed. He also ties this into his theory of natural law. OOh I think I am going to have to read Barnett's "The Structure of Liberty".

2002-09-28T17:21:00.000-05:00

Kathy and I went to Jazland today. It was nice. We decided to go because a local radio station ("The Zone") sponsored a day where it only cost $10.53 to get in (the radio station is 105.3 on the FM dial). This was much better than the usual price of $32. While the park was nice, I have to say it was somewhat of a dissapointment. Of course, as far as rides go, no amusment park competes with the roller coaster rider's dream park, Cedar Point (which is near enough to my hometown that I could go there most of my life). However, this park also had few shows or displays or reviews or whatever. In fact, today it only had two shows: a water ski show and "dancing in the streets". The ski show was, well, a ski show. We didn't see the other. As far as rides go, they had a minature "power tower" that lifts you up quickly and surprisedly. However, it isn't too big and doesn't have a "demon drop" like track, so it can't really drop you safely. Jazland also has a wooden roller coaster. That was nice, all though not too big of a deal. The park also has an interesting coorkscrew type ride with a surprise. Once you finish the track, it goes up the first hill backwards, and you ride backwards through the ride. A nice effect.

This is a nice little park. Probably not $32 worth. You would never expect it to be much. It reminds me of a smaller and less popular "Boblo Island" (which is now not even an ammusment park at all, thanks to competition from Sandusky's Cedar Point). With some work it could be better, but it could never be all that.

2002-09-27T21:11:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts on values and Libertarianism
Recently I have been re-analyzing parts of Hans Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed. In his book, he talks about the clash between himself and more liberal libertarians such as David Boaz and Clint Bolick. Hoppe's critique is that he (and Rothbard) favor local governments above much larger federal governments always. Boaz and Bolick favor whichever levil of government favors freedom. This difference leads up to Hoppe critizing one of the most widely known and (much desirvedly so) well loved cases: Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka. Hoppe opposes this case because it takes freedom away from local governments to discriminate. He further leads to the idea that it would be fine if private communities in Anarco-Capitalist communities to discriminate against those they don't like including people of poor behavior (drug users), unfavored sexual identities, and even race.

The problem is that all of this is perfectly consistant with Rothbardian theory. This is something that I find incredibly problematic. While I favor local control over local government resources, if the local governments create racially segregated schools, this should not be allowed--I think there is some sort of interest compatibal and coherent with freedom to keep local governments in line. Furthermore, if I lived in an Anarco-Capitalist world, I would not invade against discriminating communities but I do wish that there would be some value that libertarians had that would oppose this. Hoppe certainly can't recognize why discrimination would be a bad thing--or at least he doesn't seem to mention it. At least Rand's Objectivism can do this.

2002-09-27T20:53:00.000-05:00

"The American Conservative and the Populist Right

I have to put some conflicting information here. As I have wrote below, I am becoming more and more interested in The Nation. However, I am also interested in the new Conservative magazine The American Conservative. While some of Pat Buchanan's anti-immigrant, anti-trade, and even anti-business bothers me, I have to say that Taki (the magazine's other editor) makes up for that.

2002-09-27T20:48:00.000-05:00

Libertarians as Left??

I have written about this elsewhere and talked about it before, but my girlfriend disagrees. I think that Libertarians are obviously close to the left. Well, of course we have our differences. But look at The Nation! This is the premiere left magazine. What does it talk about? It is focused on the war on terrorism at home and abroad. The slant is both anti-war and pro individual rights. Check out the interesting article on the war splits (basically Cockburn and Chomsky (anti-war) and Hitchens (pro-war).The Left after 9/11. Also, there is an interesting column suggesting that the constitution provides freedom from religion.Katha Pollitt's Column. There is definately a lot to agree with here.

2002-09-25T15:13:00.000-05:00

Its been a looooong looooong time since my last post. Thanks to Mr. (Huricane/Tropical Storm) Isidore, I have some time on my hands. Things have been crazy. I moved out. I now have my own apartment!! I am having some fun with it. The new TV season is on. I have been going to "go" meetings. The campus libertarians have become active. Everything is working out fine. Now I have to get a job! And get back to studying too!

2002-08-27T20:17:00.000-05:00

I love the smell of the streetcar. There is something very earthy (maybe that is the wrong word) of the metal and grease. It is probably one of the most posative smells that says "New Orleans" to me (well, there is the smell of the food).

2002-08-27T15:34:00.000-05:00

Classes are back. Now that I have finished my first "long" day I can give a review:

1. Advanced Criminal Procedure: This class looks to be interesting. The prof. is a AUSA and worked on the recent Edwards appeal (and won!). While I sometimes tend to be biased against agents of persecution, uh, I mean prosecution, former governor Edwards had it coming. What makes the professor really interesting is that he recently went up againts big Al Dersh, again, and won! However, the professor is so swamped with his other job that he didn't edit or really organize the lecture. He is interesting and has lots of material, but as of the first class (very little to judge by) he is down on preparation.

2. Fourteenth Amendment: This is an 8:30 AM class. :( It should be good. Griffen is good. However, I hope to get away from the basic stuff and move on to the deeper equal protection/due process stuff.

3. First Amendment: This looks to be interesting, but not much to comment on yet.

4. European Community: I will probably drop this. It doesn't look interesting. How does the EC deal with the free flow of goods/people accross Europe. I don't know. I probably will never deal with these issues. I just took it for the credits when I thought BE was full. Its too bad though because the prof. looks like he is one of the more interesting ones.

5. Business Enterprises: Another introductory class. This looks interesting, but OK.

2002-08-26T13:07:00.000-05:00

Ya the smelt are running
The fever's everywhere
So patch up your waiters
Its that time of year
Toivo and Ano in the pick up truck
Theyve got all running boards just in case they get stuck

Everybodys going smelting
Everybodys going smelting
Everybodys going smelting
Smelting U.S.A.
Smelting U.S.A.

--Da Yoopers

2002-08-23T12:18:00.000-05:00

Jury Nullification

I don't have much to say on this right now, but there seems to be some controversy surrounding the issue, which I believe is important. Check this out! Jury Nullification.

2002-08-23T12:12:00.000-05:00

Well, multiculturalism has sunk to a new low. Feminists, I'm sure, will love this news. While Europe has seen the event of increasing muslim gang rapes of European women, some have sought to blaim the rapes on the woman. This time it is that the women aren't dressing in a multiculturally sensative manner. They should wear longer dresses, to keep the hot blooded muslim males from attacking them. And people wonder why I tend to be suspicious of multiculturalism. Check out this story. Modern Multiculturalism. On the plus side, there is a very interesting story linking this phenomenon to 9/11, as a rape crisis volunteer points out. Blaiming 9/11 on American foreign policy is like blaiming a rape on the victim. Very interesting

2002-08-22T11:27:00.000-05:00

Yay for sanity! Cynthia McKinney (the craziest person on the hill) has lost her primary! Ms. McKinney is apparantly suffering from her last bit of inanity when she stated that the President knew about 9/11 before it occurred, but didn't do anything about it because he wanted to make money from the war profits. Check out this storyCynthia McKinney goes down

2002-08-22T11:10:00.000-05:00

It's a sad day. The "satans" must change their nickname. Now they can be something more exciting, like the "cougars". Satans no more

2002-08-20T11:21:00.000-05:00

OK, I'm really not getting it! Eugene Volokh's commentary on privacy law

2002-08-20T11:20:00.000-05:00

OOps, something is wrong with the web link. Lets try this again. Eugene Volokh's discussion is here:

2002-08-20T11:19:00.000-05:00

For an excellent discussion of the problems with privacy laws, read Eugene Volokh's excellent discussion in his August 20 (today's) blog. . In his commentary he discusses how one man who secretly taped his conversation with the police durring a traffic stop was considered in violation of privacy laws. He also comments on how it is illegal to tape your ransom conversations with kidnappers without the kidnapper's approval and knowledge. Frightening stuff.