Charles H. Wright

Historians are familiar with Dr. Wright's name: he was a leading medical practitioner in Detroit, and a strong voice in the civil rights movement. And, as an African-American, he opposed what he called the "federal encroachment on private practice of medicine" - that is, he opposed the types of programs which are being forced onto the American public, against the will of the voters, by Senator Harry Reid, Congresswoman Pelosi, and President Obama.

Dr. Wright saw the government's attempt to regulate, manage, and fund the health care system as the direct result of racism. He argued that those who desired the government to limit the freedom of both patients and medical professionals would not desire such intervention if society and the medical system were free of racism: federal control of health care was desired to counteract the effects of unjust discrimination.

In an open and published letter to the AMA, Dr. Wright urged the organization to direct its attention to the issue of equality in the medical system. Achievement of racial equality, he concluded, would bring the additional benefit of ending legislative attempts to allow the federal government to control both patients and medical professionals: the blossoming of civil rights "will make the government's efforts unattractive and unnecessary" in Wright's words.

As an African-American, Dr. Wright worked for the civil rights of citizens to vote, to speak freely, and to exercise their economic choices; as a physician, he worked for the rights of patients and health care professionals to make decisions without government regulation or management.

A Perfect World?

Students of history are familiar with Utopians from Rousseau to Marx to Kropotkin. In various ways, they all envision the perfecting of human society, humans individually, and world as we know it. From these noble ideals and desires arise the very opposite - misery, suffering, and injustice. Utopian plans inevitably crash, because their basic assumptions ignore the simply fact that the world and humans, collectively and individually, are neither perfect nor perfectible. A 1992 report from the Excellence in Broadcasting Network describes more recent forms of Utopian thinking:

There is a common bond which spiritually unites these people, which is that attitude of cultural radicalism carried over from the 1960's. Theirs is an anti-American credo, which abhors American political and governmental institutions and this nation's capitalistic economy. Their value system is at war with the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded and is centered in secular humanism and moral relativism.

Note the connections with Marx, inasmuch as modern Utopians are "anti-capitalistic", and the connections with Rousseau, inasmuch as they desire to destroy our culture and replace it with their envisioned ideal culture. Observe also the desire to destroy humanism, as we know it in Erasmus and T.S. Elliot, as we see it in Da Vinci and Michelangelo, as we hear it in Bach and Haydn - to be replaced by their idealized "secular humanism," a world view of mechanized determinism which denies that humans can make meaningful or significant choices in life.

Theirs is the me generation, which seeks immediate gratification, presumably because there is no spiritual tomorrow. Their God is not spiritual or personal. Their God is in every fiber of nature and is impersonal. He is just as much a part of the plant and animal kingdom as He is a part of the human soul; thus, their pantheistic devotion to animals and the environment. Their God did not give them dominion over nature and the animal kingdom, positioning them at the top rung on the hierarchy of creation.

If one regards all of nature as God, one is then obliged to view a human being as nothing special. Despite their talk of "human rights," Utopians essentially believe that a human is no more special than a flower or a fish.

As their emphasis is on this world, they cling to the belief that man is morally perfectible and that Utopia on earth is achievable.

In various forms, this drive toward Utopia needs the coercive force of an authoritative government to accomplish its social engineering. These idealists believe that, if only everyone will cooperate with their plans, a perfect society is right around the corner. Yet not everyone will cooperate, and they feel themselves justified in forcing compliance from those unwilling citizens who cling to their personal freedom. Surely, the Utopians think, it is worth it to temporarily remove the rights of a few people in order to create a perfect society for everyone. From this seemingly innocent sentiment, it is but a few short steps to using the guillotine to execute thousands of French women and children, because they didn't seem enthusiastic enough about the latest instructions from the revolutionary government. Thus ever ends Utopian hopes.

Dewey and Your School

The American educational system has been deeply influenced by John Dewey and his followers. Prior to Dewey, teachers had traditionally viewed education as having two major components: "knowing that" (information) and "knowing how to" (skills). Dewey rejected both of these.

Instead, he asserted that the major purposes of education were clustered around the concept of becoming a member of the community. He wrote: "What nutrition and reproduction are to physiological life, education is to social life."

The impact, then, of Dewey's popularity was to de-emphasize a teacher's concern for curriculum ("knowing that" and "knowing how to"), and instead emphasize those aspects of education which are social in nature. The direct result is that American high schools have clubs and sports teams, counselors and student councils, and classes about health and parenting.

It is difficult for us, living in the twenty-first century, to imagine a time when the average American high school had none of these things - so deep is Dewey's influence on our educational institutions.

But how do we evaluate Dewey's contribution? Has it been good or bad? Critics note that since Dewey's time, American students have mastered fewer and fewer of the core concepts of higher mathematics, fewer of the central works of world literature, and fewer foreign languages. In the words of a 1991 report from the Excellence in Broadcast Network, schools are teaching students about condoms and recycling

instead of Aristotle. We're not teaching anything else very well. Our kids get lower scores on math and English tests every year. As a result, kids from backwater European and Asian countries are outperforming our kids left and right in school because we're hung up on teaching feel-good history and worthless social gobbledygook.

That was twenty years ago. In which direction have we gone since then? Have American schools continued to do the jobs of parents and neighborhoods, or have they returned to serious education? During the typical school day, is learning interrupted by forays into counseling, peer relationships, sexuality, relationships, environmentalism, etc.?

Dewey's influence caused the schools to perform the tasks of parents and neighborhoods, which meant first that parents and neighborhoods had nothing to do (the schools having taken over their roles), and second that the schools weren't doing much educating (because they were busy raising children instead of instructing students).

The question for education in the twenty-first century, then, is this: are we moving further into Dewey's influence, or beginning to escape from it?

Sneak Attack!

In the complex web of society, religion, and culture, we are now seeing damaging attacks on the Christian faith. Assaults on organized religions are nothing new in the history of the world, but they take different forms in different epochs.

We are writing not about the obvious attacks taking place in various parts of Asia and Africa in which churches are being firebombed and individual Christians tortured or killed, nor about the verbal offensives by militant atheists who pile insult after insult upon Christians. These types of attacks, while sadly all too numerous, are obvious, and need little comment: the atheists who protest against a Christian organization like the Salvation Army, which simply distributes food and clothing to the poor, offer their own confutation to the thoughtful observer.

The less obvious, and therefore more dangerous, attacks upon Christianity come now from those who have labeled themselves Christians and present themselves as representatives of that faith, for the very purpose of discrediting it. This is reminiscent of the "mole" or "double-agent" from the spy novels of the Cold War era.

Specifically, in recent days, newspaper and TV coverage has featured two groups: Reverend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, and the Hutaree Militia. These two organizations share two characteristics: first, neither of them is Christian, and second, both of them claim to be Christian.

By identifying themselves as Christian, and then behaving badly, these two units succeed in doing damage to the public's understanding of what Christianity is. This type of subterfuge can do more damage than the direct physical violence of atheists and Sudanese Muslims.

Enlightened thinking demands a clear definition of what "Christianity" is, and subsequently the ability to distinguish between which groups are Christian and which groups merely claim to be. Although defining Christianity is a complex topic, there is at least a simple beginning to that complexity: the only possible starting point for any proposed definition is the text of the New Testament.

Exactly as Judaism is defined by the Tanakh (and Talmud), and exactly as Islam is defined by the Qur'an (and Hadith), so also Christianity is defined by the New Testament (and Tanakh). Admittedly, there are competing interpretations of the New Testament, and the analysis of some details becomes quite complex.

But this much is clear: anything which directly contradicts the New Testament cannot be textually authentic Christianity.

The "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his "church" (the quotation marks reminding us that he is not a Reverend, and his organization is not a church) proclaim, among other things, that "God hates" certain groups of people. Yet the text of the New Testament is tells us that God never hates any human being, and that He, in fact, loves every human being.

The Hutaree group claims that they are morally obliged by God to attack and kill policemen. Yet the New Testament is a consistently pacifistic document, in which Jesus consistently declines to engage in any form of physical violence, and proclaims that His organization is not one supported by military force, but rather by spiritual concepts.

The imperative for the current day is this: to ignore the self-classification of institutions, and ask rather, what they may really be. Merely because a group labels itself as Christian doesn't mean that it actually is, and a group which does not so identify itself may actually be.

Economics + Environment + Transportation = Railroad

In recent months and years, newspapers and politicians have discussed expanding America's railroad system. From streetcars and trolleys inside cities, to commuter rail lines linking nearby towns, to long-distance service across the nation, trains seem to offer a cornucopia of benefits: short-term job booms as lines and stations are built, long-term job growth in railroad employees and ancillary businesses (selling newspapers and coffee at the train station), lower transportation costs for all sorts of businesses shipping everything from raw materials to finished products, the most efficient use of fuel possible, less environmental impact, de-congestion of freeway and major roads, less wear-and-tear on those roads, and the ability to do business while traveling instead of having both hands and the wheel and eyes on the road.

There is no doubt that improving and expanding our rail system would be an advantage for our country.

An improperly conceived rail system, however, can turn into a economic failure - and consume endless infrastructure dollars without creating the promised conveniences to the business community.

To reap the harvest promised by railroad expansion, we must observe the following principle:

Any economically feasible or sustainable passenger rail system relies upon the physical infrastructure and economic momentum provided by moving large amounts of freight via train.

We must make sure that we focus first on increasing tonnage, which is where the real money is. Every diesel truck rolling on our interstate highways contains freight which could be on a train. Moving some of that cargo to railroads will create the volume business which will pay for further increase in physical infrastructure. Moving that cargo to rail will also save fuel, reduce environmental impact, and keep the roads in better condition. Businesses will want to move more cargo by rail because it will cost them less.

What about jobs? For each hundred tons of freight moved from diesel truck to railroad, the number of trucking jobs lost will be slightly larger than the number of rail jobs created. Won't that create unemployment? No. And here's why:

As we move cargo from truck to train, we can also reduce the amount of money which the federal government uses to subsidize the trucking industry. (Yes, trucking is federally subsidized: the road taxes paid by trucks do not offset the disproportionate wear-and-tear they put on the roads; as less freight moves down the freeways, those interstates will need to be re-surfaced less often.)

Fewer federal subsidies to the trucking industry will lead to fewer tax increases; fewer tax increases leads to more business, creating employment for any former trucking workers who might not get rail jobs.

It is not feasible to maintain and build medium-range or long-range rail lines mainly for passenger travel. Tickets sales won't even begin to cover the costs. Even with strong freight tonnage on the rails, passenger rail is often not profitable, and needs to supported by the cargo revenues or by tax breaks for rail companies.

The bottom line: we need to encourage (via gradual reductions in federal subsidies for the trucking industry) more freight to move by rail; only then can we build the physical infrastructure and maintain the economic momentum to provide good passenger service, and only then can we reap those many benefits which a good rail system offers.

International Evaluations of Obama

A recent article in The Atlantic Times gives a European perspective on President Obama. Reporter Peter H. Koepf writes:

The party is over. Great hopes have turned into serious doubts. Those who welcomed Barack Obama as a messiah a year ago have now been forced to admit that the 44th president of the United States is only human. His lofty visions have become far distant goals. The president, who formulated grand designs in an almost fundamentalist fashion, is operating – when he operates at all – as a pragmatist.

The article is entitled "Rude Awakening" and comes in the wake of comments by France's president Sarkozy, Germany's chancellor Merkel, and England's prime minister Gordon Brown, all of whom have been less than cheerful about Obama's international impact.

If not among the leaders of Europe, Obama had some fans among the media of those countries. But now, even the news reporters aren't very enthusiastic:

Now his fans are deserting their former icon. The “post-polarization candidate” (New York Times) has become a polarizing president. “Renunciation of the Savior” was the headline in Munich’s daily Süddeutsche Zeitung – a reference to falling support for Obama in the US.

It might have been worth enduring the contempt of Europe if it meant achieving good diplomatic relations with countries in other parts of the world: but in the Mid-East, Africa, Asia, and South America, government leaders are equally cool toward Obama.

In Germany, too, those who were most enthusiastic about Obama last year are now voicing the loudest criticism. The president’s former supporters are forced to realize that even with this leader, war – and nuclear weapons – are not about to disappear from the face of the Earth. Nor will the world become a fairer place.

Obama has done a lot of traveling during his first year as president; but these trips have only served to show various nations who he really is: instead of the diplomat creating international harmony, he has revealed himself to be, in some cases, abrasive and uncultured, and in other cases, capable of being unwittingly exploited by local rulers who wish to continue ignoring human rights and directing aggression toward neighboring countries. His diplomatic trips have not had the desired effect: the more other nations understand Obama, the less they are inclined to operate diplomatically with the United States. Obama fared best when other nations knew the image of him created by the American media: that image, because it was very inaccurate, created considerable popularity for Obama. Prior to his election, thousands of Europeans expressed a favorable opinion of him. Now, however, he is not welcome:

Obama’s speech in Oslo may have been the turning point. When the president accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in December, he said: “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.” Since then, not even the Germans have loved the American president quite so much.

Can The United States regain its image and diplomatic stature among the European nations? Perhaps. In any case, we cannot blame the current fiasco entirely on Obama: clearly, actions by the current Congress, and words from the current Secretary of State, have also earned international censure. Although Obama's bumbling and dithering haven't helped, he alone is only part of our problem. The cure will be change on a bigger scale than merely the White House.

Tired of Statistics?

For a century or more, writers and speakers have developed the habit of using statistics to support their views. This becomes clear if we compare, for example, a political speech given in 2010 with one given in 1510. This mathematical trend has been popular because it gives the appearance of being scientific and rational.

Reflective listeners and readers, however, have long realized that statistics are subject to manipulation and misinterpretation. One need only recall the primary lesson that correlation does not imply causation, or recall Mark Twain's quip about statistics, to understand why the numerals which adorn political texts need either to be carefully examined, or to be ignored.

We understand that quantitative analysis is important, and should be done, but we border on the absurd when a report is released by the Treasury Department, and it is immediately combed by various political parties, who harvest whatever numbers appear to support their agendas.

Is there an alternative?

Researchers hoping to escape the statistical madness have focused on a method of qualitative analysis. This type of investigation has long been used in situations where a statistical approach isn't possible: it has been used by the United States Air Force in debriefing crewmen after missions, by the FAA after crashes, by physicians in case studies, and by police detectives. When studying a single event or a unique case (N=1), statistical approaches are usually meaningless.

This type of qualitative analysis is now being transferred from situations in which statistical analysis is impossible to situations in which statistical analysis is unhelpful. In certain branches of medicine and economics, for example, quantitative analysis yields results which are ambiguous or misleading. Qualitative analysis, by contrast, can yield more understanding of the situation's dynamics.

So, in some situations, we can avoid statistics and get a better insight of the matter at hand!

Economics in 1967 and in 2010

The past is always instructive to those of us who are dealing with the problems of the present and future. In 1967, the governor of California wrote the following:

For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension.

Well, the truth is, there are simple answers; they just are not easy ones. The time has come for us to decide whether, collectively, we can afford everything and anything we think of simply because we think of it. The time has come to run a check to see if all the services government provides were in answer to demands or were just goodies dreamed up for our supposed betterment. The time has come to match outgo to income, instead of always doing it the other way around.

In 2010, we will see the U.S. economy continue to struggle, and it will be made worse by the tax increases for every citizen in our country. The current trends in both Congress and the White House will raise the amount of tax paid by every individual in this country, even by the poorest.

What we need now is lower taxes for every American, meaning that the current leaders in Washington will need to stop thinking of new ways to spend money. Any expansion of government programs is a crushing burden to wage-earners who can least afford it.

Want to Read More about Hebrew Literature?

The poetry of the Hebrews has a structure which is both complex and subtle.

Robert Lowth published his Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews in 1787. The book remains in print today. Lowth was educated as a classicist, and explains Hebrew poetry by constant reference to Greek and Latin poetry, thoroughly comparing and contrasting the Classical and Sacred literary forms. He advanced the thesis, never serious doubted since then, that almost all Hebrew poetry is formed in parallelisms, couplets of parallel structure. Lowth was an Anglican Bishop.

George Buchanan Gray wrote The Forms of Hebrew Poetry in 1915. It also remains available in modern reprints. Gray refined Lowth's classifications, and developed ingenious readings of texts which had been previously been seen as corrupt and readable only with major emendations; Gray deduced principles of Semitic poetry which allowed these texts to be sensibly read without emendation. Gray was a Non-Conformist clergyman.

Obama Opposes Release of Terrorist

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released from a Scottish prison recently. The move was called "compassionate" by Scottish officials, because he has only a few weeks to live with terminal cancer.

When he landed in Libya, according to newspapers, "thousands were on hand to greet him warmly when his plane from Scotland touched down at a military airport in Tripoli. There was a festive atmosphere with some wearing t-shirts with al-Megrahi's picture. Others waved Libyan and Scottish flags while Libyan songs blared."

In 2001, the terrorist was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 which killed 270 people. He has been considered a hero in Libya, which is 97% Islamic.

President Obama released an official statement, saying that the decision to free terminally ill Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was a mistake and warned Libya not to give him a hero's welcome. The White House declared it "deeply" regretted the Scottish decision. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday the United States disagreed with the decision to free al-Megrahi.

We continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland," Gibbs said. "On this day, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones."

Victory for Free Speech at UCLA

The administration of UCLA upheld a student's free speech rights, and overruled lower-level administrators, regarding a graduation ceremony.

At a ceremony for students receiving graduate degrees in molecular biology (not the mass graduation for four-year degrees), students were permitted to write a brief statement, which they would read when receiving their diplomas. All manner of diverse opinions were allowed, except one: any reference to Christianity was prohibited by the administrators. At least one student, Christina Popa, had wished to make such a reference, and that student, supported by her professors, appealed to the university's upper-level administrators, who pointed out the obvious discrimination in allowing every variant of religious and political views to be expressed, and then singling out one religion and forbidding any mention of it.

Thankfully, a courageous stand by students and professors in the molecular biology department withstood an attempt by administrators to steamroller the first amendment.

Murder at the Holocaust Museum

Within recent days, we have been shocked and horrified by the murders perpetrated at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. What is the profile of this madman, James Von Brunn, who would take human lives in this most serious place?

The killer was apparently filled with hatred toward President George W. Bush; he accused Bush of favoring Jews, and decried Bush's views about the Middle East. He asserted that Bush, not al-Qa'ida, had carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Rejoicing that Bush was finally out of office, he was emboldened by the election results, and finally carried out these shootings.

In his remarks, he specifically stated that he hated "conservatives and neo-conservatives." He noted that many of the leaders of the neo-conservative movement were Jews.

The lesson - people filled with irrational, passionate hatred will eventually take actions: horrifying actions. James von Brunn was clear in his speaking and writing: he had a intense hostility toward George W. Bush and toward the neo-conservative movement in American politics. We now know where such hatred leads.

Student Sues Teacher and Wins

A federal judge ruled in favor of a student in Santa Ana, California. The student alleged that the teacher had violated the first amendment's guarantees of "free exercise" of religion, and freedom of speech.

The teacher, James Corbett, had made comments insulting and denigrating the beliefs of various students in his history class. Corbett told the students that any doubting or skepticism about Darwinism was "superstitious nonsense." Instead of admitting that increasing numbers of professors in the science departments of the world's universities are less inclined to accept the teachings of Darwinism, and asking if there is sufficient evidence for, Corbett rather simply accused the biology, physics, and chemistry department of being unable to "see the truth", and dismissed their questions about evidence as "religious nonsense."

The judge opined that the teacher had favored "anti-religion over religion," violating the right to "free exercise" of Muslims, Jews, Christians, and nearly everyone else. Instead, the teacher's duty is to create "expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion."

In short, the teacher's job is to create a free discussion, even about offensive topics; but the teacher may not conduct an anti-religious tirade.

Terrorist Killing in U.S.

Since the attack on the World Trade Center, we have been relatively safe in America; most of the terrorist plots to kill people here were stopped before they could be carried out.

Until June 2 of this year, that is.

The Associated Press reports as follows:

A Muslim convert "with political and religious motives" shot two uniformed soldiers outside an Arkansas military recruiting center Monday, killing one and wounding the other, authorities said.

Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, on a nearby interstate shortly after the bloodshed at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock. Three guns were found in his SUV, they said. Investigators say that he appears to have been "passionate about Islam."

He will be charged with first-degree murder, plus 15 counts of committing a terrorist act, authorities said.

The terrorist struck without warning.

"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them," he said.

A Different Worldview

We try to understand events which seem strange to us, especially when they are part of a cultural fabric in some other part of the world, because we are trying to understand the underlying idea of life. The specific events are interesting, but more important is the cohesive worldview of which they are all a seamless part:

* Two high-profile cases within the last year in Saudi Arabia speak volumes. In the first, a brother killed his sister, named Fatima, because she had become a Christian. In the second case, a father cut out his daughter's tongue to prevent her from discussing Christianity; finding this insufficient, he then burned her death. In both cases, there was no legal action against the killers, in part, because they were male relatives of the victims, and in part, because they were motivated my anti-Christian hatred. In a final layer of shocking detail, the father in the second killing was a high-ranking official in the Saudi government, whose career in "The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" was helped, rather than hurt, by the killing. To be sure, these were not the only two cases of Christians being murdered because of their beliefs, but they are two cases that were leaked out to the free press in western countries.

* During President Obama's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, he bowed to the king, something never before done by the leader of a free nation. Normally, when heads of state visit each other, they do so as equals, and therefore they do not bow. During the preceding eight years, when President George W. Bush visited Saudi Arabia, he did not bow to the king; President Bush and the king are personal friends, and the Bush family and the Saudi royal family are friends. Obama's action has been interpreted variously; there is no clear consensus about what he was intending by this violation of protocol.

* President Obama issued an invitation to the leaders of Iran to open diplomatic discussions; the Iranian government has indicated that it is not interested in negotiating about nuclear weapons, or its regional ambitions regarding Iraq.

* Obama also issued an invitation, asking to speak with "moderate" elements of the Taliban. A Taliban spokesman replied, in a press release, that "there are no moderate Taliban."

* The five prisoners who had been the support team for the nineteen terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks have issued a statement in court; delivered by their lawyer, and released by the judge, their statement says that they are dedicated to "kill all infidels, including Christians, Jews, and atheists;" that they consider themselves "terrorists to the bone;" and that the 9/11 attacks are "a badge of honor in our religion." Although we can dismiss these five men as merely extremists, and not representative of a larger group, we must remember that they are still celebrated in posters, T-shirts, and bumper stickers in Arab world; we must remember the spontaneous celebrations in the streets of the Middle East on 9/11. This is indicative of something larger.

Poetry Captures Reality

One of poetry's several merits is its ability to crystallize a truth in a single group of words. In response to a horrifying tragedy, Haley Patail wrote about a murderer, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail," encapsulating an insight into the criminal mind.

Writing about the deceased victim and a funeral, she wrote, "I would go and give words to the dust-heavy air if it would change something, I would pretend that I know how to kneel in pews if it would make me feel right about this." The poet has recognized two spiritual truths here: that our songs and prayers do not change the fact that our loved ones have gone into the next life, that we bitterly grieve because we miss them; funerals are for the living, not for the dead - to remind the living about God and the afterlife - a reminder which will neither bring the deceased back into this life, nor ease our mourning, but a reminder which centers and stabilizes us by placing the events into a global, objective, and neutral frame of reference. By stating that our spiritual meditations neither "change something" nor make us "feel right about this," the poet has communicated these two truths in an efficient economy of words.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once made a comment to the effect that, if one wants to investigate eternal truths, poetry can often do a better job than philosophy.

Sometimes, Bigger is Better

Robert Kennedy was a major figure in the politics of the 1960's. His speeches and actions, as Attorney General of the United States, and later as a candidate in the primary elections, have been much studied and discussed.

One of nine children, Robert Kennedy was the father of eleven. He was tremendously popular in the press, in part because of this family image. Many of his eight brothers and sisters have earned their own fame in American politics, as have his children, and his numerous nieces and nephews.

The popularity of the Kennedy family stands as a paradox, given the hatred directed toward large families by much of the current media culture. Forty years after the emergence of the Kennedy political profile, the family remains influential in partisan government, but American culture has abandoned its respect for having children.

Statisticians, however, are not surprised by the success of the Kennedy clan. It has been shown that there is a strong correlation between large families and various indicators of success: the more children born to a married couple, the more likely those children are to earn good grades in school, do well on standardized tests, and to not commit crimes; further, those children will do better at the university, and are more likely to rise to positions of leadership in their communities and careers.

These are averages, of course. Exceptions do exist. But the general trend is undeniable, and not too surprising: to manage a large family, parents will need to be intelligent and organized, and the children will likely have these traits also.

Contrary to stereotypes in the electronic media, higher education levels among the parents also lead to larger families: married couples with college educations will likely have more children than those with less education.

Ever since Thomas Malthus wrote about population, it has been clear that sustainable, renewable, and environmentally responsible resources on planet earth can support world populations many times larger than the current six or seven billion. Overpopulation, which was considered a threat in the 1960's and 1970's, is not a danger.

Which leads us to a mystery: why, then, is there such antipathy toward families who have more than two or three children? This is a field for research. Although sociologists have advanced a number of theories, there is no clear cause for this irrational hatred - or, perhaps there is a clear cause, but nobody has yet discovered it.

Is Obama Black, or Simply African-American?

America's obsession with racial politics is fanned daily by the press. An unending stream of articles continues to examine Obama's status from the perspective of his skin color.

A recent variation on this theme is to examine the quality of Obama's "blackness": in Detroit, a survey received responses like: "He is not black enough" or "That is what you get, when you have a mixed child raised by a white mother."

These responses point to a painful and divisive topic within American society: at the intersection of race and culture, the situation of mixed-race children is highlighted to an uncomfortable degree.

Obama, like Alicia Keyes and Halle Berry, is the result of a brief marriage between a Black man and white mother; after the marriage disolved, he was raised by his mother. Young Barack did not grow up in the "hood" of Harlem, Watts, or Detroit. He grew up in a middle-class, college-educated, white extended family. He may be African-American, but Detroiters are wondering if he's Black.

And not only Detroiters. Black Entertainment Television's Jeff Johnson notes that there's a difference between "Obama the president" and "Obama the personality," saying, "he's my president, and not my homie."

Obama's life has hardly been that of a "homie": a private prep school in Hawaii from fifth grade until his senior year in high school; before that, a paradoxical mix of private Roman-Catholic elementary schools and a Madrasah in Indonesia. His life experience places him far outside the mainstream of African-Americans. He spent no significant amount of time in the continental United States until after graduating from high school; after that, he was at Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

Obama's mother is from Kansas, and studied Anthropology and Russian at the University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Obama's father was separated from his mother long before the couple's actual divorce, and so young Barack had no formative influence from his African father as a child.

Americans continue to try to understand their new president: is he Black? is he African-American? is he Hawaiian-Kenyan-Indonesian?

How does he view the African-American culture, if he grew up in an white extended family, away from the major Black urban centers? How does he understand American society, if he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia?

Race Numbers

No, this isn't about NASCAR. The numbers mentioned are statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, reflecting the population of the Ann Arbor area:

74.68% White
8.83% Black or African American
0.29% Native American
11.9% Asian
0.04% Pacific Islander
1.21% from other races
3.05% from two or more races

These numbers are based on the census from the year 2000, revised according to subsequent surveys and calculations.

Various Forms of Slavery

As Americans, we read the word "slavery" through the lens of our own experience - and very harsh experience it is. Slavery as practiced in Western hemisphere until 1863 was one of the most brutal forms of this social institution.

When we read ancient texts, it is important to remember that translators are often perplexed when deciding to render a given vocabulary word into English as "slave" or "servant" - the difference to our eyes being great, but in earlier eras of history, a much more subtle distinction.

In some ancient cultures (notably Rome), these people were given authority within households and businesses; they were educated, wrote books, and made important decisions.

In certain phases of Egyptian and Babylonian history, slavery was more cruel, and slaves were treated like working animals. Moses took a great step forward when he limited slavery to seven years. Prior to that, slavery was lifelong, and, in a majority of cases, it would continue to be lifelong in all societies except the Hebrews.

So read carefully when you see words like "slave" or "servant" and realize that a variety of circumstances can hide behind these terms.

Alphabetizing!

When small children learn their ABC's, they don't realize that they are paying homage to a major turning-point in the history of civilization.

The alphabet represents progress, because earlier writing forms (hieroglyphs, cuneiform) took longer to learn, longer to write, and longer to read. Before the alphabet, very few people could read or write, because it took so long to learn how to read and write; and very little reading and writing was done, because it took so long. After the invention of the alphabet, more people could read and write, and more information was recorded in writing. The alphabet is a Semitic invention.

The term "Semitic", we remember, includes a range of groups including Arabs, Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, Syrians, and Ethiopians, to name a few.

Not Semitic are Persians, Hindus, Hittites, and the European language families.

So the rise of the alphabet highlights the importance of Semitic cultures in the ancient world.

Denying the Holocaust

Some facts about the history of the twentieth century are clear to everybody: one of these is that millions of innocent men, women, and children died in the event which we usually call "the Holocaust" or Shoah. Yet, despite the manifest documentation about the Holocaust, there are Holocaust deniers, or those who insist that it never happened.

Recently, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, took strong measures against an employee of his church who made remarks which seemed to deny the existence of the Holocaust. Ratzinger, also known as Benedict XVI, would not allow any statements which compromise the historically documented facts. The employee disciplined by Ratzinger, Richard Williamson, is facing stronger measures from different national governments in Europe, who classify Holocaust denial as fraud punishable by law.

This is in contrast to the government of Iran, which promotes Holocaust denial. The current president of Iran, members of its government, and professors appointed to its universities persistently spread the notion that there simply was no Holocaust - that it never happened. Such a view can be accepted only by those who have left all rational thought behind. Yet it remains the officially stated position of the Iranian government.

Sex, Anyone?

Human sexuality is always fascinating, yet often we rely on vague impressions rather than scientific observation and systematic data. When we look at the facts, we find that some of our perceptions are rather inaccurate.

In the first comprehensive global study of sexual behavior, British researchers found that people aren’t losing their virginity at ever younger ages, and that married people have the most sex.

Professor Wellings of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines and her colleagues analyzed data from 59 countries. Wellings said she was surprised by some of the survey’s results: "We did have some of our preconceptions dashed." Experts say the study will be useful in dispelling popular myths about sexual behavior.

The study also found that contrary to popular belief, sexual activity is not starting earlier. Nearly everywhere, men and women have their first sexual experiences in their late teens — from 15 to 19 years old — with generally younger ages for women than for men, especially in developing countries. That is no younger than 10 years ago. In every country, teens are choosing keep their virginity longer. This surprised researchers, because the common media image presented to the public is that of young people failing to keep their virginity. "There's a big disconnect here," commented one scientist, "between real life on the one hand, and the world of TV and movies on the other hand."

Researchers also found that married people have the most sex, reporting engaging in sexual activity in the previous four weeks more frequently than single people. There has also been a gradual shift to delay marriage, even in developing countries. Married people also report greater satisfaction in their sexual activity, both physical and emotional.

A follow-up study, conducted by sociology professor Armour at Ohio State University, explains why some of these surprising trends are taking place: Teens who lose their virginity earlier than their peers are more likely to steal, destroy property, shoplift or sell drugs than their virgin counterparts. The study, reported in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, found that those who had sex early were 26 percent more likely to be in trouble than those who waited, even years after their sexual debut and well into early adulthood. Those who had sex later had delinquency scores 20 percent lower than their peers. Waiting had a protective effect.

"Students in high school and college are watching their peers and learning," said a researcher. "They see what happens to others choose to keep their virginity a while longer, because they don't want to endure those same negative consequences."

Allowed to Live?

In November 2008, voters in Michigan pondered a vote about stem-cell research. Now, there are almost no moral or ethical objections to research which attempts to derive medical benefits from those stem-cells which are harvested from a patient's blood, skin, or bone marrow; and there is little argument against stem-cells derived from umbilical cords.

Very controversial, however, are those stem-cells obtained by killing a fetus (an unborn child). This was at the core of the Michigan vote.

In press coverage leading up to the election, a local newspaper quoted the supervisor of a research lab who commented that "these are embryos that would have within them genes for specific diseases so it would be unethical to donate them to use reproductively." In brief, she was saying that it would be unethical to allow these children to live.

The example was given of Alzheimer's, and genes which may either predispose individuals toward it, or cause it. The implication is this: if we know that a child has a tendency to develop Alzheimer's Disease, it is our moral duty to prevent such a child from being born.

Consider, then, some of the people who have led productive lives until they developed the disease (the average age of onset is approximately 65 years): Rita Hayworth (actress), Harold Wilson (Prime Minister of Britain), Iris Murdoch (novelist), Ferenc Puskas (soccer star), and Terry Pratchett (novelist), to name only a few.

We are being told, then, that society should have prevented the above-named individuals from being born; and that society failed, that society committed an unethical act, in allowing them to be born. This is the inescapable logical conclusion of the quote, given in the media, by a researcher.

As if to somehow soften this moral harshness, the newspaper article gratuitously added that one of the researchers in this lab attend a Roman Catholic high school, as if that fact were in any way relevant to matter at hand.

How Did We Get to This Point?

In the 1980's America enjoyed its best-ever economic cycles; by 2008, we are facing substantial economic difficulties. How did this happen? Two factors seemed to have injured our economy: government regulation of free markets, and government spending. [Note: this post was greatly influenced Lara Khadr, who wrote and posted a text making some of the same or similar points. I have shamelessly stolen both ideas and actual paragraphs of text from her posting. Lara did, at some points, take a very different view of things, so no assumptions about her convictions should be taken from this post. Whatever is worthy about this post is probably her thinking, whatever is deficient about it is probably mine.]

Ronald Reagan is simultaneously considered one of the greatest and most controversial presidents in United States history. His presidency was marked by many political transformations, especially in the realm of economics. The economic doctrine Reagan adopted during his presidency, commonly referred to as “Reaganomics,” contributed to an era of Great Expansion in the mid-1980s. However, some argue that the effects of economic expansion, and the long-term growth that Reagan had envisioned, were undermined by later fiscal and monetary policy decisions made after Reagan left office.

Ronald Reagan’s economic program consisted of four major pillars: reduce the rate of growth of federal spending, carry on with deregulation, attain a low stable growth of money supply, and reduce tax rates. The goal of Reaganomics was to reduce government interference with the economy and develop an entrepreneurial-based self-sufficient market. His goals and the pillars that outlined his program embraced the principles of supply-side economics that gained popularity during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Supply-side economics focused more on creating supplies versus worrying about demand. Reductions in taxes did this, as more businesses could afford to open and they would increase productivity. An increase in productivity brought more jobs and reduced unemployment that had reached a record high at the time Reagan initially took office.

Reagan used deregulation to ease inflation, which was also very high at the time, by lowering the cost to start a business. Prices were reduced and as a result, competition increased, in the trucking, airline, railroad, and telecommunications industries. Growth in prosperity in these industries spread to other industries, as transportation and telecommunications are central to society.

By deregulating the communications industry, there was a burst in technological innovation, which helped the United States become competitive on an international level in that arena. This correlated perfectly with the technological revolution of the 1980’s, as personal computers and video games burst in popularity. A further conversation on deregulation and its possible effects is beyond the scope of this paper, and the aspects of it that pertain directly to supply-side economics have been discussed.

As a result of the implementation of Reaganomics, the 1980’s saw a tremendous growth in jobs and businesses, and a reduction in inflation in a short period of time. Tax cuts helped bring 19.3 million jobs during the decade, with the majority of them being highly paid. The unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent in 1981 to 5.3 percent in 1989. When Reagan first entered office in 1981, the United States was in the worst recession the country had seen since the Great Depression. By 1982, the recession was alleviated, and the country entered a period of sustained economic growth.

In early 1983, economists saw the first signs that the economy was recovering. It would soon take-off with dramatic force. Lasting 93 consecutive months, it was the biggest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.

The background of Reaganomics can be traced back to post-war economies, a vague term that roughly describes the economies of the 1950’s and 1960’s, which leaned towards the Keynesian theory. This “demand-side” theory, presented by British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, focuses on short-term economic fluctuations due to the belief that unemployment results from insufficient demand for goods and services. Keynes ultimately believed that government action could directly influence demand for goods and services by altering tax policies and expenditures.

The 1970’s brought an increase in the popularity of supply-side economics, which greatly challenged Keynesian theory and was a term that Reaganomics would make a household name. Jack Kemp, a New York representative and an intern in California for then-governor Ronald Reagan’s staff, was an adamant proponent of supply-side economics. He believed that growth allowed social problems “to take care of themselves.” In his opinion, tax reduction was a key to economic growth and could be done by affecting supply-side incentives. In 1977, Kemp and Delaware senator William Roth introduced the Kemp-Roth Tax Reduction Bill, calling for a 30% reduction in personal income rates over a three-year phase. Due to large inflation accompanied by stagflation at the time, there was large public support for the bill. Although the tax cut did not pass, it was influential due to new intellectual ideas appearing at the time.

University of Southern California professor Arthur Laffer, along with Columbia University’s Robert Mundell popularized their idea of ongoing and informal supply-side economics with politicians and journalists. Laffer is probably famous for introducing the Laffer curve, which emphasized tax reduction as a solution to economic issues. The curve starts at zero tax, but then shows an upside-parabolic curve to demonstrate that up until a certain point (the absolute maximum on the curve) an increase in tax rates will result in an increase in revenue. After this point, an increase in tax will hurt revenue. Despite sharp criticism from Keynesian economists, supply-side was given serious thought in various places. Joint Election Committee (JEC) chairman Lloyd Bensen liked supply-side economics, saying that it was “the start of a new era of economic thinking.” It provided policy makers with a novel way to envision the country’s economic problems versus the conventional way of aggregating demand in post-war America.

The nation first saw an outline of Reaganomics in August of 1979, when Martin Anderson, Reagan’s chief domestic policy advisor, drafted the Reagan for President Campaign’s “Policy Memorandum No. 1.” The plan included suggestions for the economy such as across-the-board tax cuts of at least three years duration accompanied by an indexation of federal income tax brackets. There would also be a reduction in rate of increase in federal spending, vigorous deregulation, and a strict monetary policy to deal with inflation. Reagan would attempt to implement these principles throughout his presidency, and would introduce acts, bills, reforms that would have long-term effects, reducing debt and deficit numbers even after he left the presidency.

In 1981, Reagan made two influential policy decisions that would increase investment by Americans over a long period of time. A general reduction in tax rates, one of the major pillars of Reaganomics, yields great feedback in terms of faster economic growth, a larger tax base, and larger tax revenues.

Reagan introduced a tax-cut bill in 1981 that established tax deductions for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) that resulted in 12 million taxpayers contributing $28.3 billion towards their retirement. In addition, his administration established a principle that employees could have a tax-free income if matched by employers and channeled into their retirement accounts. As a result, the number of Americans with 401k plans increased. By implementing such policies, a massive class of small investors were created that were previously non-existent.

Not only did this new wave of investors create jobs by fueling business growth, but they also pro-actively addressed concerns about the ability of major employers to fund the retirement of the “baby-boomer” generation.

The economic growth, initiated by Reagan, was threatened, however by Congressional actions. Congress did not prepare itself properly for the outcomes of Reagan’s economic doctrines, as government spending increased. For example, Congress resisted cuts in domestic spending, and did not reform basic entitlement plans, which provide unearned payments to individuals. Increased spending in these programs, which include Medicare and Social Security, caused problems for Congress controlling the exact size of budget deficit and surplus. According to the White House’s website, the federal gross debt as a percentage of GDP rose when Congress acted by increasing spending (and therefore increasing both the deficit and the debt). With more businesses opening during Reagan’s presidency and a growing, aging population that relies on the benefits of Social Security and Medicare, federal spending has only increased at a pace far faster than domestic output has increased. Given the spending plans put forth in the mid-1990’s, the government can barely afford to sustain many of its programs. Because the experience of the 1980’s shows that higher taxes will hurt any potential economic growth, Congress must enact disciplined spending cuts.

To maintain sustainable economic growth, not only must Congress consistently reduce federal spending, but there must also be a supply of quality opportunities for new capital investment. During the 1990’s, the Clinton administration introduced policies centered on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac; these policies diluted the quality of investment opportunities, and eventually culminated in the 2007/2008 “housing bubble.” Reagan’s deregulated mortgage market had allowed lending institutions to loan money to customers who were most likely to repay. Clinton’s policies forced the lenders to loan money to those identified as unlikely to repay. Clinton’s regulation of the market in the 1990’s created massive defaults in 2007 and 2008.

In conclusion, former President Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates by introducing bills in the early 1980’s that increased American investment and productivity. However, Congress did not make the necessary adjustments needed: spending cuts, and sustained deregulation of the mortgage market.

The lesson: free markets aren't free if the government is regulating them, and if the government is spending lots of money, it either creates debt which slows the economy, or it raises tax rates which slow the economy.

When the News is Too Complicated for the News Media

The economy is big news right now. We’re all absorbing as much of it as we can, but is it helping ... or hurting?

According to Poynter Institute Media Business Analyst Rick Edmonds, most newsrooms are doing their best to cover the ever-changing economic story, but it's so complex, it's almost a losing battle.

"Local reporters and certainly national reporters can definitely handle the 'how it's impacting individuals' angle," he says. "But let’s face it, trying to explain complicated financial economic terms is a losing game."

Realize that, if you have experience in the business world, or have a master's degree, you may well be able to understand the situation better than the reporter on your TV screen. Grab a book on economics or investing from your local library, and soon you'll be pointing out the flaws in the TV news.

Add on the fact that news is ratings-driven, and colorful words and dramatic headlines are the norm.

"It's a practice that has crept into coverage over the last decade," says Edmonds. "When there is a big story, ratings go up. You can’t just say, 'we're reporting on the war in Iraq,' you have to have a title for your coverage."

So what should consumers do to keep up-to-date on financial news?

"Having access to professionals in the financial industry is your best bet," says Edmonds.

Remember, the people on TV weren't hired for their understanding of complex economics. They were hired because they look good, and can use their voices in impressive ways. Get yourself an ECON 101 textbook, or a FINANCE 101 textbook, and ten minutes of reading will tell you more than a week's worth of the evening news on TV.

Helping

On December 26, 2004, a tsunami struck several different countries in and around the Indian Ocean. Many different governments sent help; the U.S. government sent more aid than any other government.

President Bush sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. The largest ships in the fleet, aircraft carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. The U.S. military saved thousands of lives in the days following the tsunami.

But, although the U.S. government sent more aid than any other government, there was another source of help which was much larger still. The charities in America sent billions of dollars in food, medicine, and supplies. In addition, the charities funded teams of nurses and doctors to set up hospitals, and teams of builders to remove rubble and start rebuilding.

The private charitable organizations in America not only sent more aid than the U.S. government, they sent more aid than all the governments of the world combined!

Which shows that, in offering significant help and making progress, private sector charity trumps government programs.

Not Building an Empire

One constant feature of human nature is the desire to take over and rule large amounts of territory. Whether in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cyrus of Persia, etc.), or in modern history (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon), people want to build empires.

By contrast, there are those armies who defeat their enemies, and yet allow those enemies to keep their land afterward: nations which do aim to absorb their enemies, but rather to turn their enemies into friends. In the modern world, there is one such nation: the United States.

After two world wars, we returned all conquered lands to their own nations. After Operation Desert Storm, we returned all territory. We are preparing now to return Iraq to the Iraqis.

Colin Powell, former secretary of state, said, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Keeping the Peace

In late 1814 and early 1815, Napoleon's career was coming to an end, and Europe had suffered twenty-five years of nearly continuous chaos and bloodshed: first, the ten years of the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), and then Napoleon's dictatorship. France had conducted wars against, or involving, nearly all of Europe. The misery was wide-spread.

The leaders of European nations gathered at the Congress of Vienna to answer the question, how can we keep Europe safe and peaceful? The conference was organized and led by Metternich. The starting point for discussion was the Treaty of Paris, first signed in 1814; during the conference, Napoleon attempted his comeback, and when that failed, a second Treaty of Paris was issued in 1815. The Bourbon absolutist monarchy was reinstated, and France lost the territory which had stolen from other nations after 1789.

It was clear that Europe would assume a new shape on the map, and a new political tone, especially because Napoleon had also officially ended the Holy Roman Empire. The Congress of Vienna wanted to ensure that Europe's new layout would lead to peace and stability.

The official dates of the conference were from November 1, 1814 until June 8, 1815.

England was represented by Castlereagh and Wellington; Napoleon gave England two of its greatest heros, Wellington and Nelson, and Wellington also was immortalized in the famous beef recipe. Wellington's real name was Arthur Wellesley, but he was called Wellington because he was the Duke of Wellington.

Metternich represented Austria, and Prussia was represented by Hardenberg and Humboldt. Alexander I represented Russia. Talleyrand represented France, and almost single-handedly saved his country, because the other nations wanted to punish it for the twenty-five years of butchery it caused. Talleyrand persuaded the other leaders that they would have nothing to gain by devastating France, but that if they left the country intact, it would benefit all of Europe.

Do You Exist? Do I?

Only a philosopher would spend time trying to answer the question, “do I exist?”

It's not that philosophers are worried about the answer. They know that they exist. But given that the answer is automatically “yes”, how do we prove that answer? It's not enough to answer a question - you must offer evidence to support that answer. What evidence can you offer in order to convince me that you exist?

Descartes and Augustine share not only the argument Cogito ergo sum - in Augustine Si fallor, sum - but also the corollary argument claiming to prove that the mind (Augustine) or, as Descartes puts it, this I, is not any kind of body. “I could suppose I had no body,” wrote Descartes, “but not that I was not,” and inferred that “this I” is not a body. Augustine says “the mind knows itself to think,” and “it knows its own substance”: hence “it is certain of being that alone, which alone it is certain of being.” Augustine is not here explicitly offering an argument in the first person, as Descartes is. The first-person character of Descartes's argument means that each person must administer it to himself in the first person; and the assent to Augustine's various propositions will equally be made, if at all, by appropriating them in the first person. In these writers there is the assumption that when one says “I” or “the mind,” one is naming something such that the knowledge of its existence, which is a knowledge of itself as thinking in all the various modes, determines what it is that is known to exist.

But Descartes recognized that his use of this form of argument is quite different from Augustine's: “I do indeed find that Augustine does use it to prove the certainty of our existence. He goes on to show that there is a certain likeness of the Trinity in us, in that we exist, we know that we exist, and we love the existence and the knowledge we have. I, on the other hand, use the argument to show that this I that is thinking is an immaterial substance with no bodily element. These are two very different things.”

Augustine's purpose in the larger context is to establish the continuing goodness of the world following the fall. To this end, Augustine argues, as Jean-Luc Marion summarizes, that “we recognize in ourselves ... an image of God, that is of the Supreme trinity. It is not an adequate image, but a very distant parallel.” And this premise leads to the conclusion that ”we are human beings, created in our Creator's image.” Thus, for Augustine, “Self-certainty thus leads self-consciousness back to the inner consciousness of God, which is found to be more essential to consciousness than itself. For the si fallor, sum does not aim at the ego, nor does it come to a half in the res cogitans, seeing as the interior intimo meo transports it, as a derived image, toward the original exemplar. The si fallor, sum remains the simply, though first, moment of a path that, in two other more rich moments (knowing one's Being and loving it), disappropriates the mind from itself by the movement of reappropriating it to its original, God. The si fallor, sum does not assure the mind of having its principle in itself, since it does not grant it Being in itself nor saying itself by itself (like substance). On the contrary, si fallor sum forbids the mind to remain in itself, exiled from its truth, in order to send it back to the infinite original. The mind is retrieved only insofar as it is exceeded.”

Descartes wants to show that “by means of the certainty of Being that thought secures for what from now on becomes an ego” that the I is an immaterial substance: “What is at stake, then, is not found simply in the connection of thought and existence, however certain this connection might be. That the mind thinks, therefore that it is insofar as it thinks – this belongs to an inference that is if not banal ... at least quite commonplace. What is peculiar to Descartes consists, as he so lucidly indicates, in interpreting the certain and necessary connection of the cogitatio and existence as establishing a substance, and moreover a substance that plays the role of first principle.”

With reference to Jean-Luc Marion, we may conclude that, despite the rather different goals of their writings, Augustine anticipated Descartes by over a thousand years, and even anticipated Anselm by five hundred years, in composing what amounts to an a priori argument directed against radical skepticism. For, although Augustine's argument makes reference to sensation, the structure of his argument is essentially a priori.

The Mind or The Brain?

Modem philosophy of science has been devoted largely to the formal and systematic description of the successful practices of working scientists. The philosopher does not try to dictate how scientific inquiry and argument ought to be conducted. Instead he tries to enumerate the principles and practices that have contributed to good science. The philosopher has devoted the most attention to analyzing the methodological peculiarities of the physical sciences. The analysis has helped to clarify the nature of confirmation, the logical structure of scientific theories, the formal properties of statements that express laws and the question of whether theoretical entities actually exist.

It is only rather recently that philosophers have become seriously interested in the methodological tenets of psychology. Psychological explanations of behavior refer liberally to the mind and to states, operations and processes of the mind. The philosophical difficulty comes in stating in unambiguous language what such references imply.

Traditional philosophies of mind can be divided into two broad categories: dualist theories and materialist theories. In the dualist approach the mind is a nonphysical substance. In materialist theories the mental is not distinct from the physical; indeed, all mental states, properties, processes and operations are in principle identical with physical states, properties, processes and operations. Some materialists, known as behaviorists, maintain that all talk of mental causes can be eliminated from the language of psychology in favor of talk of environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Other materialists, the identity theorists, contend that there are mental causes and that they are identical with neurophysiological events in the brain.

In the past fifteen years a philosophy of mind called functionalism that is neither dualist nor materialist has emerged from philosophical reflection on developments in artificial intelligence, computational theory, linguistics, cybernetics and psychology. All these fields, which are collectively known as the cognitive sciences, have in common a certain level of abstraction and a concern with systems that process information. Functionalism, which seeks to provide a philosophical account of this level of abstraction, recognizes the possibility that systems as diverse as human beings, calculating machines and disembodied spirits could all have mental states. In the functionalist view the psychology of a system depends not on the stuff it is made of (living cells, metal or spiritual energy) but on how the stuff is put together. Functionalism is a difficult concept, and one way of coming to grips with it is to review the deficiencies of the dualist and materialist philosophies of mind it aims to displace.

Gettin' Sneaky

Samuel Adams was a man of courage and integrity. As one of our founding fathers, not only does our nation owe its existence to him and his colleagues, but the world owes its concepts of modern freedom and democracy to this same group.

His contribution was to organize in Massachusetts the local committees of correspondence. After he had formed the first one in Boston during 1772, some eighty towns in the colony speedily set up similar organizations. Their chief function was to spread the spirit of resistance by exchanging letters and thus keep alive opposition to British policy. One critic referred to the committees as "the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of sedition."

Inter-colonial committees of correspondence were the next logical step. Virginia led the way in 1773 by creating such a body as a standing committee of the House of Burgesses. Within a short time, every colony had established a central committee through which it could exchange ideas and information with other colonies. These inter-colonial groups were supremely significant in stimulating and disseminating sentiment in favor of united action. They evolved directly into the first American congresses.

So, if you have liberty, if you enjoy both civil rights and human rights, if you are to express opinions and beliefs freely, if you able to make some decisions about your own life ... thank this group of sneaky note-writers!

The Movie Director, the Football Coach, and the Boy Scouts

A controversial motion picture producer, Michael Moore, is loved by some, hated by others, and probably misunderstood by many. A lifetime member of the NRA, an Eagle Scout, and an active supporter of the Scouting Movement, he refuses to be painted into narrow category of “left-wing” or “right-wing”.

A University of Michigan football coach has a demanding job, especially if he wants to claim a national title. He has very little free time, and has to make his choices carefully, because the actions of the head coach will reflect on the U of M. Yet Fielding Yost spent a great deal of time and effort promoting the Boy Scouts, with the approval of U of M’s president.

Two very different high-profile people, but one common goal: to ensure that young people in America have the opportunity to be involved in the Scouting Movement.

Bill Clinton - liberal, conservative, or other?

The Clinton presidency is generally seen as "liberal" - being sandwiched between the two Bush presidencies - but, as we have learned, those words "liberal" and "conservative" can be misleading.

During his first term in office - long before the Lewinsky scandal which made him famous - Bill Clinton signed into law the bill known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is the strongest statement to date against homosexual marriage, and which prevents any attempt at diverting federal benefits away from traditional marriages and toward same-sex legal unions.

Now, this may surprise those who see Clinton as a liberal. But Clinton's chief of staff and other close advisers directed him to do this in the same way that they directed him to his other political actions: they kept a close eye on the majority opinion among the electorate. With over 80% of the voters opposed to federal benefits being used to create this novel legal category, Clinton knew that his political future would depend on his following their lead.

Is Clinton a liberal? Perhaps. But perhaps he was simply following the direction set by the democratic process. Which raises a second question: should a president in a democratic society be a "leader" or a "follower"? Although we call him a "leader," we paradoxically expect him to "follow" the majority of the voters.

In either case, Clinton's 1996 support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands as one of the strongest political moves to date against the "gay marriage" movement.

The Greeks Unite in the Struggle Against the Persians

Most of the Greek city-states developed similarly to Athens. Around the year 500 BC, all of Greece felt itself threatened by something external, by a powerful enemy in the east: Persia. The Persians were an equestrian nation, which came out of the rough highlands of the area we today call Iran. They ruled an empire which stretched from India to the Mediterranean coast, and which encompassed the ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt. One can truly speak of a world empire in this case.

The Persian emperor (or "king of kings") allowed the subjugated nations to have their religions and customs, but they had to pay tribute (money) regularly, and supply soldiers when the Persian king demanded this of them. In the assembled army, the empire because visible in its expanse, and in successful campaigns, the invincibility of the king showed itself. Because of the great distances and the limited opportunities for direct control, the emperor placed his representatives to rule the individual regions; they were called "satraps" or "tyrants" or governors.

Naturally, the Persian king could not tolerate it, if parts of his kingdom would attempt to gain their independence. But exactly this is what the Greek cities in Asia Minor did, in his opinion, when they undertook a rebellion in 500 BC under the leadership of Miletus. In 494 BC, Miletus was destroyed on his orders.

The Athenians had supported the rebellion. The Persian king Darius sent therefore, in 490 BC, a rather small army across the sea in the direction of Greece. The Athenians didn't want to subjugate themselves, and decided to fight.

In the battle of Marathon, an Athenian army defeated the Persians. A military tactic, not practiced by the Persians, played a decisive role: the Athenians fought as heavily-armed foot soldiers, as "hoplites", and appeared thereby in closed ranks, as a "phalanx". The hoplites, formed in several rows, one after another, were "fired up" by means of music, and followed orders as a unit. If the man in front fell, the one behind him had to step forth immediately. Each one had to rely on the other.

The Persian were not content to be defeated at Marathon. Xerxes, the son of Darius, in 480 BC, undertook for this reason better-prepared attack on all of Greece, with perhaps 100,000 soldiers and approximately 1000 ships.

Many states in northern and middle Greece subjugated themselves, either under threat of force, or voluntarily, but not a confederation led by Sparta and including Athens with its fleet of 200 new battle ships. Sparta was, at that time, the most powerful city-state in Greece, and determined to resist unconditionally.

The first attempt to stop the Persian, at Thermopyle, a narrow pass between the mountains and the sea, gained for 300 Spartans a heroic death, but didn't succeed. The path toward Athens was now open to the Persians. There, the inhabitants left the city, and they hoped for a victory by the fleet. The Persians entered Athens, plundered it, and destroyed the more important temples. They considered this to be revenge for a similar deed by the rebellious Greeks in Asia Minor.

But the war was decided in two large battles. First, the Greeks defeated, with luck and skill, the numerically superior Persian fleet in the straights near the island of Salamis. And in 479 BC, the Persian army was devastatingly defeated by the Spartans and some allies at Plataea. A confederation of Greek city-states had thereby defended its own independence against an empire which appeared incredibly powerful.

In Greece, the opinion now spread about the Persians, that they were not only different than the Greeks, but rather by nature inferior humans. These "Barbarians" were seen as enemies, whom one simultaneously despised and feared. The Greek word "barbar" had, until then, designated someone who did not speak Greek and was thereby unintelligible. After the Greeks used this word on the Persians, it took on the negative connotation which it still has today.

Caught!

As "green" politics becomes an ever bigger force in world politics, various countries using, or abusing, environmental information as part of their rhetoric and public relations campaigns.

Mainland Communist China (in contrast to Formosa Taiwan China) has long had a rather poor record in its treatment of the planet. Dumping chemicals of all sorts into rivers and burning high-sulfur coal have been standard practices in the twenty-first century, despite the global focus on clean air and clean water.

In an effort to improve its image, the Chinese government released several photos. One showed a tiger, belonging to a species thought already extinct, roaming through the woods in China. Another showed a large herd of endangered Tibetan antelopes grazing peacefully in a prairie. These pictures were designed to reassure the international community that China was making progress in learning to protect the environment, and would soon "catch up" to Europe and North America.

The problem? University students analyzed the images, and determined that they were fake! Chinese intelligence agencies had done a "cut-and-paste" job, placing old photos of these long-dead animals into images of their former habitats.

True Dialogue

In our diverse and multi-cultural society, how does a Muslim carry on a dialogue with a Jew? Or a Republican with a Democrat? Or a Pro-Lifer with a Pro-Abortionist?

There are ways for people, who have profound disagreements and even conflicts, to engage in civil and polite discussion. This is much more likely to preserve peace than angry confrontations and name-calling.

How do we engage in civil dialogue?

First, whatever your personal opinion, remember that there are such things as right and wrong interpretations of historical texts, political texts, or biblical texts. A text - a piece of writing - can't have any random meaning. There is a set of meanings it can have, and a set of meanings it can't have. There are actual historical facts to which texts do or do not correspond, and true and false propositions, true and false statements, about the relationship between the story and reality. Consequently, we become upset with someone we suspect of lying, intentionally trying to obscure the facts, unduly disrupting the conversation, or doing anything that seems contrary to the spirit of truth-telling.

Second, remember that there are things called objective moral truths. We might disagree about what they are, or we might not even know what they are, but they are there. In our dialogues, we are not just courteous; we try to be responsible and fair in our interpretations of what the other is saying. We don't deliberately mis-understand or twist the other's words to make the opposing viewpoint seem stupid or illogical. We do not abide anyone who fails to respect the intentions of another. It is not permissible to treat anyone in the circle as anything less than an autonomous end-in-himself. We must attribute the best possible meaning and intentions to our opponent's words. Only this way, only by means of moral standards, is a dialogue possible.

Third, our efforts at conversation should begin with introductions, work slowly into the subtly submerged tensions between us, eventually get around to stating our disagreements, and then build toward a resolution in which we could agree on some matters, and agree to disagree about others. In this way, we can forge a consensus, even a community. It is an aesthetic idea; an artistic whole of different voices blended together. We want people to air their differences, but we do not permit disruption for disruption's sake. Radical intrusions serve, somehow, the ends of the group, the good of the whole. We orchestrate seemingly random sounds into the melody pursued by the rest.

The Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is a religious leader for most of the world's Buddhists; he is also a political symbol. Coming from Tibet, the center of world Buddhism, his very presence reminds people of the harsh manner in which the Chinese army took over Tibet, and, under the leadership of Maoist Chinese Communism, brutally attempted - and still attempts today - to enforce atheism on that country's population.

How is the Dalai Lama received in the United States, when he comes to visit? He is enthusiastically welcomed by Republicans and Conservative Christian groups, because he embodies the issue of religious freedom: these groups believe that the Tibetan Buddhists should be allowed to engage in their faith, just as the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to "free exercise" of their religions. Presidents like Bush and Reagan have warmly greeted him in the White House. Churches of various types have invited him as a guest speaker.

Make no mistake, there are important differences between Christians and Buddhists, and the two belief systems will never agree on spiritual questions about what happens to the human soul after death; but they also see that they have some things in common, and can speak together in a friendly and peaceful manner.

Democrats and liberals, however, are not so eager to welcome the Dalai Lama to the United States. These political groups fear that, if we show hospitality to the Dalai Lama, we might irritate the Chinese government, which still wants to enforce atheism on Tibet, and does not want Tibet or its Buddhists to have any political freedom. So you won't see them on TV, smiling and shaking hands with the Dalai Lama.

Is it not ironic, that the Christians, who speak most firmly against the religious beliefs of the Dalai Lama, are the ones who show him the most hospitality and friendship? It is truly an amazing form of tolerance, to be friends with the person whose beliefs you oppose.

Further irony is found in the lack of warmth from the Democrats and liberals; one would expect them to embrace anyone who publicly proclaims a belief system which is opposed to Christianity.

Federal Courts Say “Merry Christmas!”

School districts may not ban teachers and students from saying “Merry Christmas.” The Supreme Court has stated that teachers and students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” [Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (holding that the wearing of armbands by students to show disapproval of Vietnam hostilities was constitutionally protected speech).]

Under the direction of President Clinton, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley issued guidelines concerning religious discussion of students, which stated, “Students therefore have the same right to engage in . . . religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity.” [U.S. Dept. of Educ., Religious Expression in Public Schools, Archived Information, Guidelines, available at http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/08-1995/religion.html (last modified Jan. 26, 2000).]

Teachers also have the right to greet students with the words “Merry Christmas,” in spite of their role as agents of the state. In order to violate the Establishment Clause, a teacher would have to use her authority to promote religion to impressionable youth. [School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).] Saying a simple greeting that people commonly use in December does not rise to a state endorsement of religion.

Additional precedents confirmed by Supreme Court rulings: The Constitution protects all speech, including religious speech in public schools; the first amendment protects religious speech; the first amendment’s establishment clause does not require school officials to suppress seasonal religious expression; school officials may call a school break “Christmas” vacation; public schools may have students sing religious Christmas carols; public schools may close on religious holidays, such as Christmas and Good Friday; publicly acknowledging Christmas does not require public officials to recognize all religious holidays; free speech includes the right to say “Merry Christmas!”; Students may study the religious origins of Christmas and read the biblical accounts of the birth of Christ in public schools; public schools may exhibit religious symbols; students have a constitutional right to be exempt from activities with a religious content; the constitution protects religious speech; students have a constitutional right to express their faith and religious ideas in a public school; students have the right to distribute religious materials such as Christmas cards containing Bible verses in public schools; students have the right to express religious viewpoints in schools assignments, reading materials, and clothing.

Rest In Peace?

In the war-torn country of Sudan, even when you're dead, you're still in trouble!

In the on-going genocidal civil war in that region, the Islamic army, in its attempt to exterminate all traces of the Christian faith, has appropriate the graveyards in which Christians are buried, and is using them as used car lots. The cemeteries in which Muslim are buried are protected by those same armies. So if you want a good deal on a two-year-old Chevy, simply follow the hearse after the funeral!

Kierkegaard: a Comedian?

Soren Kierkegaard is generally considered to be the first existentialist, and the father of existentialism. Professor C. Stephen Evans (from Yale) offers these comments about him:

Kierkegaard ... wants to claim that there is an essential connection between humor and religious life ... Kierkegaard holds that the highest and deepest kind of humor is rooted in a life-view which is recognizably religious, and that all humor is at bottom made possible by those very features of human life which make the religious life possible.

Kierkegaard was a Lutheran pastor who lived in Denmark, and did most of his writing in the 1840's. Evans continues:

To understand Kierkegaard's claims here one must try to understand the place of humor in his theory of the stages or spheres of existence ... there are three stages or spheres of existence. The aesthetic life is the natural or immediate kind of life in which everyone begins, where one simply attempts to satisfy one's natural desires or urges. The aesthete lives for the moment. The ethical life is the life in which one grasps the significance of the eternal and by ethical resolve attempts to transcend one's natural desires and create a unified life. The religious life is the life in which one recognizes the impossibility of actualizing the eternal through positive action and instead one attempts to grasp it through repentance and suffering.

In short, the third stage is the stage in which you figure out that the second stage is impossible! The options here for irony and humor should be self-evident. As Evans phrases it:

Irony constitutes the boundary between the aesthetic and the ethical, while humor constitutes the boundary between the ethical and the religious.

Because a sense of ethical outrage, even if hidden, motivates irony, it carries one from the aesthetic phase to the ethical phase; when one finally realizes the absurdity of being, on the one hand, obliged to always act ethically, and being, on the other hand, incapable of always acting ethically, it is then humor which allows one to transcend the ethical phase and enter the religious phase. It is in this absurdity and humor that Kierkegaard's Lutheranism shows itself. Professor Evans puts it this way:

... forgiveness which is offered freely ... makes it possible for the earnest individual to smile at the contradiction between his life and the ideal he sees in Christ.

Cultural Understandings and Mis-Understandings

The history of interactions between Muslims and the other cultures of the world is one of painful conflicts. In some cases, these conflicts have been based on accurate mutual perceptions: when Islam looks at other world cultures and accuses them of lowering their moral standards, Islam is correct. When Islam has made the assessment that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is incompatible with the core teachings of Islam, because Islam rejects the concept of a God who loves and forgives unconditionally, Islam is correct in that assessment.

Sometimes conflicts are based on actual disagreements, such as the two listed above. Muslims are correct that other world cultures have lowered their moral standards: when one considers alcohol abuse, other forms of drug abuse, tobacco use, premarital sex, and other forms of inappropriate sexual activity, it is clear that there is a moral gap between Islam and the rest of the world. Muslims are correct when they judge that other religions are incompatible with their own: the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that humans cannot merit or earn God's favor or forgiveness, but rather that He gives it freely and unconditional to those who do not deserve it; a Muslim cannot accept that view of God.

But sometimes conflicts are based, not on real differences, but on perceived differences. Mis-perceptions can create the impression of disagreements, even when there are none. Four examples: Muslims sometimes perceive Christians as polytheists, because of the concept of the Trinity; but in fact, Christians are as monotheistic as Muslims, and core of the concept of the Trinity is monotheistic. Muslims sometimes perceive that there cannot be a father-son relationship between God the Father and God the Son; yet in the Qur'an and other Muslim writings, paternal and filial language is used to describe Allah's spiritual fatherhood. Muslims sometimes perceive the execution of Jesus as unbelievable; but the historical record of Roman rule in the province of Judea makes such an execution entirely in keeping with the rule of Roman governor like Pilate. Muslims sometimes perceive the written records of non-Islamic cultures as unreliable; but the historical records of the ancient world are verifiable and have shown themselves to be at least as accurate as Islamic histories.

There are enough real differences between Islam and the rest of the world to create problems; the situation is complicated by fictional differences as well.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

In 1837, Emerson wrote this poem, titled “Concord Hymn”, for a ceremony dedicating a monument at the site of the battle.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free, -
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

Emerson's work is often considered to be an example of Romanticism, but this is debatable, to the extent that one must clearly define what, and does not, constitute Romanticist art. Emerson did share, with Richard Wagner and some other extreme European Romanticists, a belief in vegetarianism. In any case, Emerson was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery in America. Emerson was very religious, but held some unusual views of religious activity: “Books are for the scholar's idle times. When he can read God directly, the hour is too precious to be wasted in other men's transcripts of their readings.” Religion is usually construed to center around the scientific investigation of sacred texts: religion is essentially reading. But for Emerson, reading was an auxiliary activity for the scholar: direct experience of God was possible, desirable, and preferable. It is this type of thought which has earned the label “transcendental” for Emerson. Emerson's exact religious views are difficult to categorize: Christianity and Unitarianism are usually considered opposites, and he seems to be neither. But his passionate belief in God motivated his abolitionist views: “The broad ethics of Jesus were quickly narrowed to village theologies, which preach an election or favoritism.” Emerson sees himself as adhering to the real ethics of Jesus, not what he takes to be a commonly-accepted but distorted version of those ethics.

I Hate You, You Hate Me, We're a Happy Family ...

No, it's not the Barney show. But it was broadcast around the world on satellite TV. The May 7, 2002, episode of the “Muslim Woman” show, filmed in studios located in Saudi Arabia, featured an example of what the program's producers considered to be good parenting. A three-year-old girl was interviewed by the program's hostess, to demonstrate her mother's good teaching.

In response to questions, the girl said that “Jews are apes and pigs, because it says so in the Koran.”

This same show was part of a larger fund-raising telethon which gathered $109 million, money donated to support the families of suicide bombers. One of the telethon's hosts declared, “I am against America forever. My hatred of America is great.”

One might be tempted to think that these kinds of statements are examples of the post 9/11 atmosphere in the Middle East. But long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, this kind of propaganda was being generated.

In 1979, Iran's Shah, who had favored an open and free society, was overthrown by the Islamic leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly shut down the universities (where discussion and debate could take place), and returned women to a confined existence in which they must wear veils and are denied education. Khomeini began a propaganda campaign against Jews and Americans, stirring up hate. But he did more than talk. His army captured sixty-three American civilians and held them hostage for over a year.

On November 20 of the same year, in Mecca, in the Great Mosque which is a very important shrine in the Islamic faith, a group of two thousand radicals held thousands of pilgrims hostage. After two weeks of fighting, the Saudi government, aided by the French intelligence agency, and armed with blueprints of the complex of buildings surrounding the Great Mosque, finally rescued the hostages. Who provided the blueprints? An engineering company operated by Osama bin Laden.

The attack in the Great Mosque emphasized an internal tension in Saudi government and society: the moderate royal family against the radical Wahhabi Muslim leaders. These two groups had worked together, despite differences, as long as the royal family could convince Wahhabi leaders that it would support their political and social views. In 1973, the Saudi royal family funded the “World Assembly of Muslim Youth” which proclaimed that “Jews are the source of all conflicts of the world.” The groups further fueled the view that the Shiite Muslims are inferior to the Sunni Muslims, and that “Muslims, Jews, and Christians cannot live together.” Although the Saudi royal family personally found these views distasteful, they funded them in order to maintain political coalition which supported their rule. It was this coalition which threatened to fracture after the gunfight at the Great Mosque.

The coalition was saved by the fact that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on December 26, 1979. The royal family and the Wahhabi temporarily put aside their disagreements, so that they could work together to keep Afghanistan in the hands of the Muslim leaders. Nothing unites people like a common enemy!

As part of a larger strategy to keep Afghanistan in Islamic hands, the coalition also funded radical Muslim organizations in Pakistan, because it neighbors Afghanistan.

From these efforts, a series of training camps would arise in Afghanistan and Pakistan. From these camps would come the organization which would eventually kill over three thousand civilians on September 11, 2001.

A Recipe for Success in Life

Many people function on a daily basis - whether they consciously express it to themselves or not - on the following principle: "figure out what you want, and figure out how to get it." This may seem like common sense; it may seem like the logical way to approach life. However, it will ultimately lead to a sense of meaninglessness and depression.

A more effective way to view one's existence is to ask: "what do other people want or need, and how can I help them get it?" This is a much more satisfying way to live.