Tanus's Xanga

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:34:24 GMT

http://adjunctscholar.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:23:35 GMT

I didn't intend to post again about Hiroshima & Nagasaki; but because of both my strong beliefs about the issue and the surprising amount of response it generated, I've decided to post one more time. I'm going to do my best to lay out the problems that most of my readers seem to still struggle with and give what I believe to be the best answers. I admit that I am far from the "Answer Man" concerning this or any other topic; but hopefully I can generate more beneficial discussion and thought with my words.

First, let's discuss the argument that conventional war would have resulted in more total casualties (William, CJ, Matt and Arthenor all touched on this). This is an argument that I discussed previously. However, I believe it deserves more attention because (a) my arguments have apparently been unconvincing, and (b) though I disagree with the conclusions of the argument, I agree that it is a very popular and convincing line of argumentation.

In response to it, I would first like to refer you back to some analysis I made earlier, which attacks one of the implicit premises of the argument above. Essentially, the argument is a utilitarian claim: If Action X will result in less harm than [not Action X], then Action X is justified. In other words, one should evaluate the "rightness" of the nuclear bombings by an ends-based utilitarion criterion.

Unfortunately, while my readers make some really compelling claims as to why a continuation of conventional war would have caused more deaths in the long run, they seem to mostly miss (or implicitly reject, perhaps) my deontological claim that the action is still wrong. In my last post, I talked about the perverse situations that can result from an ends-based mindset, especially with regard to wartime analysis.

Arthenor's response is threefold. He argues first that the situations are "different" (in other words, that starting an unprovoked nuclear war is disanalogous to the nuclear bombings of WWII). My point was simply that if it could be argued that nuclear war is inevitable (or likely to happen sometime in the future), utilitarian reasoning could justify such heinous actions as beginning a nuclear omnicide.

He secondly questions my uncomfortability with making decisions based upon calculation of "likely body counts." I am certainly not rejecting this, which is made clear by my argument that to commit an act that casuses [bad things] is worse than to allow an act that results in [bad things]. Arthenor's response (and one I believe William gave) is that, barring the nuclear bombings, we would have instead invaded Japan, resulting in the killing of civilians anyway.

However, it is imperative to note that this argument creates a false dilemma. It assumes that there are only two possible options: (1) Drop [2] nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or (2) Continue firebombing and invade Japan. Tony correctly points out that this argument leaves out other options--conditional surrender, for one. In fact, I would argue that there were options that would not have required the United States to take actions that would knowingly result in many civilian deaths.

Another major argument I would like to address is the idea that the United States was already killing innocent civilians through firebombing, etc. The argument more generally posits that the nuclear bombings were not uniquely morally reprehensible; that any ethical concerns against it could be equally applied to other tactics already being used by both sides in the war.

Well... sure. That simply means that the US did another bad thing, not that its other morally reprehensible actions somehow justify all of them. "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Moving on, Arthenor makes an interesting argument that there were really no innocent civilians. His argument is supported by a few claims: (1) Evaluate the act, not the intent (i.e. coercion is irrelevant for determining innocence or guilt); (2) Non-fighting civilians still contributed (sewing shirts for soldiers); (3) There is really no brightline for establishing complicity.

Regarding (1), my response is... well, he's simply wrong. If a man holds a gun to my head and forces me to hand him my brother's wallet, most moral and ethical systems would not hold me at fault, even though I technically had a choice ("Be an unwilling participant in theft or have your brains splattered all over the wall").

On his second argument, he makes a really dangerous slippery slope analogy. I think it's pretty clear that a 34-year-old woman, who sews a button onto a shirt that makes its way onto Hitler's body is not held morally responsible for the actions that Hitler takes. Now, I know that's not Arthenor's intended conclusion. His three arguments are simply fuel for his main conclusion, which is that since we cannot (a) flawlessly determine guilt or innocence or (b) save all innocent lives, our only option left is to "save as many as possible."

But I must heartily disagree with his analysis. First, just because you can't save all (or most) innocent life or create a distinct brightline isn't a reason to completely disregard it. By this reasoning, since our legal system is imperfect and cannot perfectly distinguish the innocent from the guilty, I should ensure the safety of myself and my family and kill anyone I suspect is guilty (vigilante style, baby!). It's not a perfect analogy, but I think my point stands regardless. Applying it to the situation in Japan: If we can't perfectly determine the majority of Japanese citizens' innocence or guilt, we should not simply disregard it altogether.

Keep in mind that Arthenor's conclusion that "well, might as well save our own lives if we can't tell" falls short at the point where invasion or nuclear bombings are not the only two options.

There was a lot more I wanted to say, but I have to get up early tomorrow, and I don't want my post to get any longer. =P I'm guessing there's enough here to talk about anyway. =)

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:30:31 GMT

Well, after getting back from vacation, it seems as if my comments on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have generated a bit of interest (read: disagreement). I have work today and tomorrow, hanging out with people before I leave (Sunday morning!), then extreme busyness with freshmen orientation... but I'll try to get something up sometime on here/blogger/Café Liberty.

4 days. =)

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:26:19 GMT

As you may or may not know, yesterday marked the 60-year anniversary of the nuclear bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed around 150,000 civilians. Ever since then, people have debated the morality of what took place. Some argue that the bombings, though horrible, were a necessary evil that helped to end the war and probably saved lives overall. On the other hand, there are those who maintain that what took place sixty years ago was a horrendously immoral action that deserves to be exposed for what it was: a war crime.

I'm of the latter opinion. Though I believe that President Truman did what he perceived to be pragmatically necessary, I also believe that he was horribly misguided in his authorization of the bombings. I know that there are many who disagree with me, though, especially having argued this issue with a number of acquaintences. Therefore, I will do my best to elucidate the arguments of those who believed that the bombings were the best (least bad) of the options available.

From my experience, every argument in favor of President Truman's course of action is centered around the pragmatic claim that it "saved more lives in the long run." While the argument will often include moral claims (e.g. saving more lives is a morally good action), the argument does center around the fact that the bombings, regardless of how horrible they were, had an overall net benefit.

The reasons for believing this statement are many, but the two most common deal with the Japanese's unwillingness to surrender and the subsequent military action that would have been necessary in the absence of the nuclear bombings. For example, a typical argument might sound something like the following:

"While what happened was horrible and killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, far more would have died in the absence of such a drastic course of action. For one, the Japanese were willing to fight to the death rather than surrender, an ingrained cultural belief that surrender was the ultimate sign of shame. This mindset would have lengthened the duration of the war significantly, most likely resulting in even more civilian deaths. Second, absent the bombings, the United States would have been forced to conduct numerous more small-scale bombings, including civilian-populated areas, which would have had higher projected death totals."

As you might have predicted, I disagree with this argument, for a few reasons. First, the argument assumes that the Japanese would have refused to surrender. Even if this claim were true (and there are reasons to believe the contrary), the position disproves itself. If the Japanese were really willing to "fight to the last man," then by that reasoning, the nuclear bombings would not have deterred them. The very fact that they were pushed into surrendering means that their supposed "fight to the last man" mentality was not absolute. If this is true, then there is no reason to assume that many more civilians would have died had the war continued conventionally. For all we know, with conventional warfare that did not specifically target civilians, the Japanese could have surrendered before the death totals passed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, and more generally, the argument assumes that more civilians would have died. This is related to my analysis above--while it is possible that the bombings "saved" lives in the long run, there were so many factors involved that any assumption about future actions and results is specious at best.

Turning to a more offensive line of argumentation, I would argue that the intentional targeting of innocent civilians was immoral. This argument holds true for several reasons:

First, I believe that intentional targeting of innocent civilians is categorically wrong, in war or otherwise. I understand that this statement would take pages upon pages to coherently and comprehensively defend, but let's just say I'm a deontologist, not a utilitarian. If you disagree with me, well, we can hash that out sometime. =)

Second, the logical end of such belief creates perverse situations. When we start to talk about lives in terms of cold, calculating analysis, it becomes easy to argue such positions such as spark analysis, where it is posited that, given the inevitability of nuclear warfare and the rising possible death toll as nuclear technology is developed and equipment is secured, it is defensible from a utilitarian perspective to start a nuclear war now. While I know that many utilitarians would not buy that argument, it does show the danger of using mere numbers to determine morality of actions, especially when those numbers are real, actual human beings.

Third, I would argue that committing an act is distinct from allowing a course of action that could itself result in an immoral action being taken. For example, I would argue that there is a definite difference (in terms of moral culpability) between participating in the genocide in Sudan and allowing it to continue. With this in mind, my conclusion becomes clear: Intentionally targeting innocent civilians is more morally reprehensible than allowing a war to continue that "might" or even "probably" would result in more deaths.

I know that my analysis is far from comprehensive in nature; regardless, I thought I would take 20 minutes of my time to throw out a thought-provoking post. Comments, disagreements and questions are welcome. =)

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:45:26 GMT

I got a new cellphone, which is pretty awesome. But I lost all my contacts; so please call me (at the same number), IM or email me your phone numbers again. Thanks. =)

edit: gone on a family vacation for 3 days. Back Wednesday sometime. Call the cell (I might have service; not sure.) =)

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:12:50 GMT

As a single college-age male, I have had my fair share of association with members of the opposite sex. Despite earlier facetious claims to the contrary, I am far from the world's foremost expert on the mysterious and often nervewracking entity known as the Dating Relationship. Nevertheless, I feel that I may be able to offer a bit of insight, however small, to my female readers (and, of course, to my male readers as well).

First, though, the background. Despite the opinions of some of you, I do not spend every waking moment thinking about girls; neither do I pass my waking hours analyzing the Dating Relationship. But the other day, I had an interesting conversation with a couple buddies of mine. We were discussing girls, obviously. But the focal point of the conversation was not what you might expect from three immature, single guys ("So, who do you like?" "Isn't ______ hot?") Rather, we were discussing and sharing opinions about why we make certain decisions about who to date (or not date).

Though I cannot speak for anyone but myself, I believe the ideas presented in the forthcoming list of "The Top 5 Reasons I Won't Date You" are at least held, in some part, by a fair number of my male friends. Please keep in mind that this post isn't intended to "diss on" girls. Rather, I hope to accomplish three simple goals: First, I intend to inform my female readers how some of us guys view girls in general, and specifically girls in the context of dating. Second, by doing this, I hope to foster an environment in which my friends can talk openly about these and similar issues. Far too often, we are simply too shy or embarrassed to talk about such matters. This is childish (well, perhaps adolescent), and it stops here. Third, well, I hope that this list entertains you to a certain extent. Otherwise you wouldn't read it, and I'd be wasting my time.

So, onward!

The Top 5 Reasons I Won't Date You

1. You take dating too seriously. Now, before you jump all over me, allow me to explain myself. I hold the Dating Relationship at a pretty high level of respect. I consider cheating (whether physically or emotionally) to be one of the worst betrayals of trust that can occur in an interpersonal relationship, and I'm all for faithful, monagomous dating relationships. Nevertheless, I believe that many girls simply take dating too seriously.

Allow me to explain. In the culturally Christian and conservative environment in which I've been raised, there has been a strong movement for the advocacy of what is known as "courtship." The interesting thing is, there's really no clear definition of what courtship actually means, and why it's mutually exclusive with (and of course preferential to) dating. Perhaps the biggest downfall of this movement has been the surprisingly predominant view that courtship is a "really really really really serious commitment that should only be pursued at the point where you believe that marriage is in close sight." While not everyone takes this extreme view, the implications are obvious. First, it creates a Catch-22. You don't want to date a guy unless you are pretty sure he's "The One(tm)"--but I would argue that you simply cannot know if he's "The One(tm)" unless you date him, spend time alone with him, etc. Second, once the courtship phase has started, it creates a perverse incentive to stay in the relationship. Let's say you do all your little preliminary work and decide that Spiffy Jones is The Man For You. So you begin to court... and oops, maybe he isn't. It's a lot harder to finally break up than it is when you don't hold the dating relationship on a skyscraper of a pedestal. I have a lot more to say on this, but it would take way too long. =)

2. You're Still Emotionally In Junior High. For those of you who don't know, I attend a small, private Christian college in the LA area called Biola University. While there is certainly something to be said for a 3-to-1 girl-guy ratio, there are a shockingly high number of girls who are, well, immature. This problem is not unique to small Christian colleges, however. I have friends who attend major universities, and they encounter the same problems with girls at their colleges.

I believe that a large part of the problem stems from before college. As we all know, junior high girls and guys are really immature and crazy. While this may be extremely annoying, it is unfortunately necessary to get all of that out of their system before they transition to high school and college. Sadly, some of them fail to get it out in junior high or high school--and those are the ones who are still immature and childish in college. Strangely enough, a majority of them that I have encountered have been girls instead of guys. I think the reasoning for this phenomenon makes sense, though. More often than not, girls are expected to act more maturely than guys are. When junior high girls goof off, they are told to behave; but when guys do the same, even if they are reprimanded, it's usually accompanied with a shrug and, "Well, guys will be guys." This divergence in attitude towards guys and girls plays itself out in the scenario I gave above. Girls may seem to mature more quickly (as I hear all the time from people), but visiting a college campus will quickly remove that trite saying from your mind.

Now this presents an unfortunate dilemma. Because of the relative immaturity of girls my age, I often find myself hanging out with girls older than myself. Don't get me wrong; there are certainly mature young women who are in their freshmen or sophomore years of college. But they are far less prevalent than they should be. So I never thought I would say this... but junior high girls, be as silly as you want. Get it all out before it's too late.

3. You Don't Make Things Obvious Enough. Now this problem may very well be fundamentally with guys, but I think girls are at least partially at fault for failing to help solve it. As we all know, guys can be pretty clueless. I'll admit it--when it comes to girls, a lot of the time I just don't know what I'm supposed to do. But this is where girls should step in and make things easier, right? Sadly, this often does not take place. Here's a hypothetical situation: Laura wants something for her birthday (a necklace, a puppy dog, whatever). She's dating John, who wants to get her something she really wants. So he asks her if there's anything she would like for her birthday. Common sense dictates that, in order to maximize the happiness of both individuals, Laura should simply tell John. But she doesn't! Instead, she gives little "hints" and "suggestions," expecting that John will be able to deftly piece together the offhanded comments about how the sun is shining brightly today, which obviously refers to the fact that the necklace would reflect the sun beautifully. But John doesn't make the connection, and gets Laura something else for her birthday.

SO frustrating. Girls, it's ok to tell us if you want something, whether it's a present or a certain way for us to act. If you don't like it when we go get coffee with another girl, don't think, "He should KNOW that I wouldn't like that" and then get angry at us secretly. We're stupid. Tell us you don't like it. Even if we disagree, at least we'll disagree and be able to talk about that disagreement, instead of us losing the fight without knowing it ever existed.

4. You Expect Too Much. Like most other guys, I think it would be pretty cool to be perfect. Not having to worry about ever messing up would be neat. But this is not the case for me, or for any other guy I know. For some reason, this fact has seemed to escape the knowledge of some girls, who expect their boyfriends to be perfect gentlemen in every way. When said boyfriend fails to achieve this impossible goal, the girl is devastatingly disappointed. Now I certainly agree that there's an appropriate amount of disappointment to be shared when someone messes up. But far too often, I've had talks with girls who completely freak out because they find out that their boyfriend drove without his license once, gave an old lady the Evil Eye in the parking lot last week, or had a sip of Heineken while underage.

I'm going to be honest here: The guy you're dating probably hasn't told you about a tenth of the mistakes he's made in his life. This shouldn't come as too much of a shock, but it's true. Guys mess up, but it's ok. The fact that he forgot that it was your 374-day anniversary is not grounds for a DTR. Now if he gets strung out on cocaine 4 days a week, that's probably something you need to talk about. But the fact that he glanced at a girl who walked by? Not so much.

5. You're Too Insecure OR Too Proud. The final thing I want to talk about is a girl's self-esteem. There are (obviously) two fundamental ways in which a girl can go wrong here: She can either view herself too harshly (the "insecurity problem"), or she can think she's all that when she's really only half that (the "primadonna complex"). If I had to choose one, I would most likely go for the girl with the insecurity problem. But ideally, I wouldn't have to choose between the two.

Girls who are insecure are painful to be around, because most of the time, they're really neat people. The most insecure girls I know are attractive, intelligent and have great personalities except for that one flaw. And that is so hard to take, because they are way harder on themselves than anyone else is. The worst is when a girl refuses to take a compliment. "Hey, good job on that test!" "Uhh... I didn't do that well." "Silly, you scored a 105." "Well... I could have gotten a 106." "ARGH." I understand that humility is good, but that humility needs to be balanced with a correct view of one's self.

On the other hand, primadonnas are just plain annoying. (I know guys can be arrogant too, but again, that's not the topic of this post.) It is completely frustrating to see a pretty, smart girl with a horrible attitude, because her positive attributes get shoved out of view. When I first meet a girl, I first notice her looks (obviously). But as I get to know her more, looks matter proprtionately less, whether for friendship or dating. So here's some advice: Don't be insecure, and don't be proud. Be glad that you are who you are.

So that's all I have for now. I'd like to remind my reading audience that this post is most definitely not meant to disparage or rant about girls. Almost no girls have all 5 of these problems, and the ones they do have are probably not to the extreme I've stated in here. Nevertheless, I think it's important for girls to see some of the problems we as guys face. Hopefully, as I said earlier, this will go far in helping guys and girls to relate to each other better.

And if you're a girl reading this, you should write one about guys. Because God knows we need it.*

*Except Alexander J. Schumacher, who is perfect in every calcuable and perceivable way. In fact, if it were possible to be perfect and not be God, Alexander J. Schumacher would be that person. Alexander J. Schumacher, a man for every occasion. Alexander J. Schumacher, The Ideal Gentleman. Alexander J. Schumacher, God's very own handiwork. Alexander J. Schumacher, a hero for our time.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:37:09 GMT

I normally try to avoid "what I've been doing" types of posts; but I suppose they're good once in a while, especially when most of my readers don't actually live nearby during the summer. So in a nutshell, here's what's been up in the past month or so:

Relatives: My grandparents and one of my uncles have been here for a couple weeks now, visiting from Hawaii. Also, an aunt and one of our cousins flew in Saturday, and are staying here for several days. They're all from my mom's side of the family. Seeing relatives is cool, but it does generally mean that we've been engaging in two primary activities for the duration of their visits: (a) eating and (b) shopping. I swear that I'm going to need to put myself on a rigorous exercise regiment once I get back to school, because I'm going to get *so* fat from the nonstop eating out and good but unhealthy meals at home.
Friends: I've been able to hang out with my friends here quite a bit recently, which has been refreshing and encouraging. The months I've been away don't seem to have affected our friendships negatively to any significant degree, which is good. We've been able to do everything we did before I left: Go to the movies, hang out at the mall, crash/eat meals/sleep over at each others' houses, play basketball and other games, and all that good stuff. I only have a couple weeks left at home now though... it's strange to think about it.
Work: Working hasn't been much this month, because my boss has been out of town (ironically in LA) for business trips. I also haven't been working as much as I could have beceause I've been sick (see next post). On a more exciting note, though, I have been accepted for two (yes, two!) part-time jobs for next semester! One is a tutoring job, paying $15/hour, and the other is a job working for Biola's Advancement Program (specifically, Wes Wilmer, one of Biola's 5 VPs) for $10/hour. Here's to hoping I'll be able to keep that, debate, and school up!
Sick: During the latter part of my trip to California, I developed what I later discovered to be a nasty eye infection ("iritis" or something--inflammation of the iris). Gross. My eye doctor said it was one of the worst cases she's ever seen--apparently I'm genetically predisposed for it, which sucks. I'm on 2 different eye drops, oral prednizone, and pain meds. Hopefully that'll only be for a few more days. By the way, much thanks to everyone who inquired about my eye and its progress; I really appreciate it. And if you read this, big shoutout to Lily for the get-well card. You rock girl. =)
Music: I've been listening to a lot of music lately... and as I like to do every so often, here's my current playlist:

"First Day Of My Life," Bright Eyes
"Cut Your Hair," Pavement
"Costello [Bonus Song]," Straylight Run
"Tifa's Theme," Final Fantasy VII Soundtrack
"Learning To Fly," Pink Floyd
"Catapult," Counting Crows
"Pin Your Wings," Copeland
"I Will Play My Game Beneath The Spin Light," Brand New
"Portions Of Foxes," Rilo Kiley
"We Both Go Down Together," The Decemberists

Now I'm going to go read Harry Potter 6 or something. I'll be back in LA Sunday the 14th, so hit me up if you want to hang out before school starts. Can I just say that I am *so stoked* for this next school year? =)

-ssm

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:49:03 GMT

While I was at the mall with a friend the other day, I noticed a shocking and pervasive phenomenon. It should have been neither shocking nor pervasive, since it was something I have been noticing for months now. Nevertheless, this is worthy of note.

Perusing through the guys' sections of stores such as Pac-Sun, A&F and American Eagle, what jumped out at me (aside from the disgustingly high prices) was the inordinate number of pink articles of clothing. All right, so I know that this is nothing new. Pink has been permeating the men's wardrobe for quite some time now. But never, and I repeat never, have I seen such a disproportionate amount of it. Also, never have I seen so much bright and hot pink in a guys' section.

This indeed is truly disturbing. I can handle guys wearing pink; done well and in conjunction with other colors, it can actually look quite nice. Nonetheless, there is something terribly wrong and aesthetically unpleasing about a bright-pink polo shirt from American Eagle.

Ladies and gentlemen, what did I do in response to this situation? I sagely restrained myself from purchasing one of the aforementioned hot pink shirts. I think that wearing pink for (a) the "shock" effect or (b) "to be different" are both rather silly. So, beloved readers, I rebelled.

I bought a pale pink long-sleeved shirt. But no, this is no bright- or hot-pink shirt! It has pale pink and grey vertical lines. In short, it is fashionable, subtle and smart. And despite Rebekah's insistence that I refrain from ever buying (and consequently wearing) a pink shirt, I Have Rebelled. But not to be a rebel.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:20:51 GMT

As promised, here's a bit of a summary from my week at the Institute of Humane Studies' Liberty & Society Seminar.

To be honest, I wasn't completely sure what to expect. I knew that IHS was an organization committed to the classical liberal tradition, and that the seminar was supposed to have approximately 70 fellow college students in attendance to discuss such principles. In retrospect, the seminar was quite satisfactory and thoroughly enjoyable. In order to avoid rambling, I'll simply note a few highlights (or lowlights) of the seminar:

First, the diversity, which was most ostensibly evinced by the residences of the students. The majority of the students were from the United States, anywhere from California to Florida. But a number of students hailed from other areas of the world--Latin America, Canada, China, Belgium, Russia, Italy, France, England and Turkey, to name several. There was also diversity of thought. Although the faculty (and most of the students) were self-described classical liberals, as is often the case, the title proved to be less indicative of libertarian party positions and more of the understandings that each individual had come to on his or her own (which seems rather appropriate, given the nature of libertarianism). Finally, there was a diversity of age. I was a little surprised to be one of only three undergraduate sophomores; most of the students were either close to completing their BS/BA, or in graduate school. Nevertheless, I was able to hold my own quite well. All three types of diversity proved to be quite beneficial, as I was able to bounce my own ideas and principles off those with different views, whether shaped by living in a different country, being in a different point in life, or simply sharing common yet divergent views.

Second, there was the lecture and discussions. Each day was packed with 4 lectures and subsequent small-group discussions. The faculty made it clear that their intent was not to indoctrinate the students; rather, they intended to provide us with information and personal views, from which we were encouraged to shape our own ideas. This turned out to truly be the case, as I often found myself disagreeing with certain proposed positions that both the faculty and other students had. On the continuum of libertarian thought, I tend toward the "anarcho-capitalist" side. For example, I'm not convinced that it's necessary to have either mandatory taxation or a national army, unless all the citizens agree. I hear this phase dissipates as one gets older though; we'll see.

The one complaint I would have about the lectures would be that they were sometimes a bit elementary for my taste. This point of contention is partially tempered by my observance that some of the issues I had previously thought through and discussed innumerable times seemed to be new to many of the students. This seemed a bit strange to me, considering I had read almost none of what many would consider to be "necessary" classical liberal writings (Ayn Rand, JS Mills and Hayek, to name a few). It was good to learn that I need to become more well-read, though--it's something I've known for a while but have never actually gotten around to curing. Consider the remedy beginning as soon as this darn eye heals. =)

Third, there was the socialization. IHS was kind enough to provide free snacks and drinks every night, encouraging everyone to sit/stand around and simply talk. For me, this was my favorite part of the seminar. While sitting around and nursing a beer or five, students were able to talk about anything that happened to be of interest. For example, I had conversations about the following subjects: the current political climate in Belgiun; the role looks should and do play in relationshipsp; the most apparent differences between the United States and Europe; the government's role in regulating activities such as sexual practices, drugs and alcohol; the merits of the schools of analytical and continental philosophy (and their pitfalls); which college teams were most likely to win the college world series next year; and a psychoanalysis of so-called metrosexuals.

Finally there were the friendships formed. All too often after similar events, people promise to keep in touch, but rarely follow through. While discussing this with one of my friends at the seminar, we came to the conclusion that although this phenomenon does frequently occur, the chances of it happening after the event were dramatically reduced, for a couple of important reasons. First, we all shared a common ideological thread. When you go to summer camp at age 13, there's no guarantee that you will have anything in common with those you meet; such was not the case at IHS. Second, the age of technology has produced such wonders as instant messaging and blogging. While allowing us to cultivate our relationships further online, it will also hopefully provide a forum for us to inform each other of future events concerning the classical liberal ideals. Thanks to William, we've already started a community blog.

And now, I'm done rambling. Perhaps later, I will attempt to tackle particular issues that arose during IHS and attempt to provide cogent explanations of my position, as well as the different views others held (and, of course, why I believe them to be wrong). =)

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:07:06 GMT

(From Gina): Human For Sale says that, at this particular junction in my life, I'm "worth" over 2.5 million dollars. I find it to be far more entertaining than informative, though. For instance, going through the various permutations possible--why does the "Pacific Islander" ethnic group receive only a $50,000 bonus, while all other ethnicities receive $130,000?

Also, download some Live 8 videos. Out of the ones I've seen so far, I think my favorite is Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb. I've also downloaded Coldplay, Keane, U2, Jet, and Linkin Park/Jay-Z.