Ciceronian Review

Good For Me

I recently read a short article in Good Magazine about education that was a nice example of this theory.  (Good is an odd magazine.  The subscription price goes to charity (you get to choose among a reasonably large list).  It is mix of trendy graphics and culture stuff with pieces on various ways of doing good in the world.  Heavily supported by advertising.  Nothing long in the magazine -- closer to Newsweek or Time than Atlantic.  Interviews with folks succeeding in altering the world, and so on.)  The article was not long, but the full page essay came to this:  Denmark spends much more of its budget on education than does the US.  (The comparison numbers are a little murky - not clear if the author was comparing total government expenditures on both sides, or national against national or what.  Does not matter much here, however.)  Author's child has learning disability.  The child is out of the public schools and into private education, at $40,000 a year in tuition.  The state should pay that tuition.  And educational support for learning disabled children of the poor does not really work.  It is for the middle and upper classes.  Oh yes, and as to author's kid, the state should pay for his private education.   

Which struck me as not quite an argument for the good.  Perhaps an argument for give me.  Reminded me of the law professor at my school who was quite strong in supporting gay rights, and had been since his daughter came out of the closet.  Or, for a more current example, Ian Ayres' deep commitment to making sure his sister has every chance to be happy.  She will be happy when she gets to marry her girlfriend.  So right and good, but here neither a matter of will or consequence.  More like right and good for me and mine.  Curious argument structure.  Why is it that I should pay even more to subsidize somebody else's family?  Why should I care about whether Ayres' sister is happy or sad?  Why her, or Good author's kid, rather than my dog?  Is there some theory about how my relations deserve greater care than anyone else, or is the family connection just advertising swamping the argument? 

Maybe Hume is right.

Clever thinking at the magazine -- the website is www.good.is

By way of further digression, it does illuminate how the No of Prop. 8 campaign should be running -- put forward people talking about their families. 

Samet

Over the weekend I finished Soldier's Heart.  It is two books I think, and only the second was reviewed.  The first is a book about teaching literature in a slightly unusual place.  But literature at West point is not odder than at some college in the countryside.  All have their rituals and curious practices.  Cow-tipping for example.  All have their students who intrigue the faculty, and peculiar traditions.  The first part of Samet's book is just that -- some fo the secret code, some of the good student stories.  Only the locale seems exotic.  Not all that much there I thought.  A pleasant recitation of some pleasant passages in time.  There is also a short second book in the last 75 or 100 pages, about literature and war and warriors.  That book was more interesting and too short.  There Samet touches on what and why her former students read (something other than manuals).  Soldiers and books, that portion offered something to think about.  Ans she had some things to say about the literature of  war, but again too quickly or to short.  It is a difficult area to work in, and to talk about without being ponderous or ridiculous.  Samet mostly hits in between, and so is interesting.  Her students too, although they seem a little thinly drawn.  That second book, had it been longer, would have earned the reviews.

Before the current stuff, I tried teaching undergraduates about war and its relations with moral and political philosophy.  I think the classes failed.  The key problem I could not solve was how to make the issues accessible -- to get students to take seriously what the subject was.  When it comes to discussion of crime or health, it is not as hard because a significant portion of the class either has been a victim or perpetrator of crime, has had some involvement in crime and legal system, or have health care experiences.  Almost none have any sense at all of war outside the theater, and don't really want to think about it.

Ancestor Worship

Genealogy has a big following in Utah.  It might be one of the most popular hobbies here.  The Church has a large center devoted to collecting genealogical information, and, I believe, provides training for genealogical work.  If one cared about genealogy, this is the place, as they say here.  Genealogy, however, seems to me a peculiar interest.  It is not the genetic history that matters really for genealogy -- it is the long list of names on one's forebears.  Something about being related to Brigham, or Sally Hemmings, or Elisabeth Windsor, is what genealogy is about.  In most respects it looks like a continuation of the very old and odd acceptance of royalty and nobility.  Noble bloodlines, that sort of thing.  It is quite pervasive -- most fantasy stories revolve around some noble born creature somehow or other vindicating its birthright.  King of the plains.  Of course, the noble blood is marker for virtue (contrary to evidence).  Utah's genealogists are after a slightly different sort of history (if one can call it that).  Some of it is seeking to tie to the founders of the church.  Some of it is theological -- among other things, the need to get all of one's dead ancestors baptized in the right cult.  There also seems to be a desire to descend from the right name, someone still noted in history (even if it is the church's).  Some branches of Joe Smith's church hold that descent determines who runs their particular cult.  The direct descendants of X or Y have some special connection to the local God.  Lots of people adhere to some variant of ancestor worship, take pride in lineal descent from some dead seignior.  Taking pride is the peculiar piece.  What is the accomplishment?  The deeds were done long before Mr. Bill appeared between his mother's thighs,  Late little Mr. Bill did nothing to bring about the mighty deeds, not even negatively -- not obstructing or delaying or enabling the deeds.  Makes no sense.  Anointed with metaphorical oil I suppose.  Magic.

In the Tank?

Sen. Stevens' had a  good day at trial today.  The judge tossed important prosecution evidence and, I think more important, will instruct the jury that the prosecution knowingly introduced false evidence.  No one testified about some of the records the prosecution used and a witness told a different story before the grand jury -- and the prosecution just forgot to tell the defense.  From the reports, the judge decided correctly.  It is surprising that such a high profile prosecution is prosecuted in such a shoddy manner.  Suggests maybe someone does not have her heart in obtaining a conviction.   Of course, these great principles seem to matter more to the judge when the defendant is of some social or political importance.

Barracuda's Odd Approach to Crime

Seems that the Wasilla policy of charging rape victims for evidence collection was indeed a fact under Sarah Barracuda's regime.  Nice.

No defense to say that it was only insurance companies that  were asked to pay.  If you bill the insurance company, you must believe that the patient is otherwise legally responsible for the charges.  Otherwise it is insurance fraud. 

Uigher Day

Once again the Bush Guantanamo policies take a hit in court.  A small group of GitMo inmates have been ordered released.  This group has been held at GitMo without even the pretense of a finding of dangerousness.  The Uighers were being held because Bush could not find another country to take them, and could not send them to China as they would be immediately imprisoned (and killed I suspect).  No evidence that they ever were involved in terrorism.  Just did not want to be under the control of Beijing.  So, for now, indefinite detention without charges is not accepted by the courts.  Appeal to follow I suppose.

Governor Small

By population, Alaska is a small state.  Census numbers put its population as around 670,000.  That suggests that Gov. Palin's executive experience is pretty limited.  She has been mayor of a very small town and is a short term governor of a very small state. Alaska's population is smaller than many cities and counties elsewhere in the country.  Of course, Los Angeles and New York and Chicago and Atlanta are all larger than the state.  In fact, 13 of the top 50 cities are larger than Alaska.  San Francisco is a little smaller, but Dallas, San Diego, Indianapolis are all larger.  So any of the mayors of those 13 cities would be better qualified than Ms. Palin.  If one thinks in terms of a comparison to counties, it is even worse for Ms. Palin.  Salt Lake County has more people than does Alaska.  In fact, of the top 100 counties, 85 are larger than Palin's state.  Palin does remind me of Roman Hruska, late senator from Nebraska.  (Good name.)  Hruska thought that the Supreme Court Justice should be selected to represent various constituencies.  When Carswell was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Nixon, Hruska defended Carswell as representing the mediocre lawyers and judges:

''Even if he were mediocre,'' Mr. Hruska declared, ''there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.''