Smart Kid II

My conversation with Jon the other night reminded me of a prior incident in which I was bested by the boy.

Early last year I was finishing work in my office in Downtown Honolulu. Jon and Arlene were waiting for me in the Starbucks on the ground floor of my building. They were playing chess.

I arrived, surveyed the board, and watched my son move his bishop two squares to the right of his knight on the same horizontal row. I noticed that my wife's rook was located on the column running between my son's knight and bishop, giving her the opportunity to "fork" the pieces and capture one of them without loss.

When my wife noticed this, she quickly moved her rook into the forking square. I then said to Jon, in my best fatherly advice giving voice, "ya see Jon, you've got to think these things through."

Jon immediately moved his queen to the row vacated by my wife's rook, checkmating her king in the process. He then looked up at me, rolled his eyes, and said "ya see Dad, you've got to think these things through."

Oh brother.

Joe H.

Smart Kid

Here's the conversation I just had with my son Jon.

Me: You can't reneg on your agreement.

Jon: Sure I can.

Me: You can't reneg and be a man of honor.

Jon: Who cares about being a man of honor?

Me: You should. Its the most important thing.

Jon: Mr. Hom [Jon's teacher] says the most important thing is to be a gentleman.

Me: Well, Mr. Hom is wrong.

Jon: No he's not.

Me: Yes he is. And how about I punch Mr. Hom's lights out?

Jon: Dad, I really don't think you could.

Me: I could if I did a sneak attack.

Jon: Sneak attack! What kind of man of honor is that?

Check and Mate!

Joe H.

Civil Unions and Public Policy

So Hawaii is once again considering civil unions for same sex couples. The proposed legislation would allow same sex couples to get "civilly unified" into relationships that are legally equivalent to traditional marriage.

I support the effort wholeheartedly. I support it from the perspective of human compassion and social justice. But I'm even more convinced that encouraging gays to form marital relationships (even if we call them something else) is very good public policy.

Marriage is, by far, the most beneficial social institution we have. Its not merely that individuals benefit in myriad ways from their own marriages (which is not true in every case, but true far more often than not). Its also that the prospect of marrying, and the expectation that one will eventually marry, promote and encourage a wide array of socially desirable behaviors among non-married people. This is particularly true among young people.

I wholeheartedly agree with conservatives on one point - marriage is a bedrock institution of our civil order. We have a keen interest in preserving marriage and keeping marriage the default expectation for adult life.

However, the opponents of gay marriage have misunderstood the main threat marriage faces. The greatest threat to marriage is not the inclusion of gays - its the proliferation of what Jonathan Rauch called alternative "marriage lite" arrangements. According to Rauch, a "marriage lite arrangement" is any program or system, legal or informal, that extends any of the legal benefits of marriage to "couples" who have either chosen not to marry or who are precluded from marrying. These include domestic partnership arrangements, reciprocal beneficiary systems, corporate programs if benefit sharing, and the like.

Marriage benefits us precisely because it conditions its benefits upon our solemn promises to meet very specific responsibilities to our spouses. The occasion of a wedding is not merely a celebration of love. It is a ceremony in which two people stand before their loved ones, their closest friends, and society at large (in the form of the law), and exchange promises of love, support, and faithfulness "for better or worse, in sickness and health, till death do us part." And these are promises that everyone present (rightly) expects them to keep (or to at least try to keep).

Alternatives to marriage, to a greater or lessor degree, mimic the legal privileges extended to marriages without imposing any marital responsibilities on the parties. That is, they validate and support mutual love, but ask for nothing in return. In marriage lite arrangements, promises need not be exchanged and commitments are not enforced, be it by law, custom, or social expectation. This makes marriage lite arrangements attractive to many people, and the more people that enter them, the more legitimate they become, particularly as alternatives to the comparatively onerous commitments of traditional marriage.

Unfortunately, because unmarried informal relationships are far less stable (and less prestigious) than traditional marriages, they fail to deliver many of the benefits of marriage, both to the alternatively arranged parties themselves and to everyone else. It turns out that its good for people to be in relationships where there are socially enforced and legally supported obligations of care and commitment. Arrangements requiring no commitment harm us all.

Society has a keen interest in supporting marriage as a default expectation for adult life (not a requirement, of course, but a legally supported social preference). It also has an interest in delegitimatizing "marriage lite" alternatives. Ironically, the fact that gays are precluded from marrying is the single biggest factor supporting the proliferation of marriage lite alternatives. Growing respect for gay relationships, and sympathy over the fact that gays are excluded from marriage, is the driving force behind the development of marriage lite alternatives.

The"civil unions" being contemplated by Hawaii's legislature are marriages in every way but name. By enacting civil unions, Hawaii would reap the enormous benefits of marriage being a default social expectation for all of our citizens. Hawaii would also undermine the legitimacy of marriage lite alternatives. For these reasons alone, we should do it.

I'm not crazy about the stigma implicit in our act of refusing to call gay relationships "marriages" - which was, by the way, the basis for the California Supreme Court's decision overturning its system of civil unions and requiring that all California citizens be allowed to marry. I'd prefer that we amend our state constitution to repeal the amendment banning gay marriage. But I think civil unions are a significant step in the right direction and, in the end, they will lead to marriage for all. So I support the bill.

Joe H.

P.S. These are not original arguments. Much of what I've come to believe about the subject was introduced by Jonathan Rauch in his book "Gay Marriage" which I highly endorse.

Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye!

I read this morning that when outgoing President Bush appeared at President Obama's inauguration ceremony, the crowd on the mall saluted him in song.

Three cheers for the mob! My sentiments exactly.

Joe H.

Coming Out of the Closet - At Church

Julie Chavez-Roderiquez, the granddaughter of the late Caesar Chavez - a legendary organizer of migrant U.S. farm workers in the 1960's and 70's, spoke at our church two weeks ago. The main point of her presentation was to explain how her uneducated grandfather, living out his faith with courage and perseverance, rallied an oppressed people to organize and non-violently challenge the unjust labor system in which they toiled. Successfully to boot!

Come to think of it, that’s the object lesson of Martin Luther King and Ghandi as well.

But I digress. During the question and answer period, someone asked Julie how she selected her causes? Julie explained that you have to ask yourself "what are you tired of?" What do you care enough about that "you’ll go the 11:00 p.m. meetings." Upon further prompting, Julie provided our congregation with the list of injustices that she was personally tired of. The finale on her list was that Gay people are not allowed to marry.

Personally, I saw Julie’s answer coming the moment she got the follow up question. Her previous comments told me where she would be on the issue. Her obvious passion and commitment to justice also told me she that would not pass up the opportunity to state her view on this highly controversial issue, despite knowing that almost everyone present would disagree with her. In fact, I was certain that she would mention the issue precisely because she knew that almost everyone present would disagree with her.

That’s what prophets do.

Anyway, during the interval between Julie’s initial comments and what I believed would be her almost certain inclusion of gay marriage rights on her justice list, I debated within myself as to whether I should shout "here here" in support when she finally came to the issue. I quickly remembered that I was in church, and that the appropriate supportive response in a church setting is "Amen." I almost laughed out loud when I acknowledged (to myself) that "Amen" might prove unnecessarily provocative.

In the end, however, I decided against the "here here" response as well. Its not that I was afraid to publicly identify myself as a supporter of gay marriage or gay love. Its rather that most Christian leaders have taken such an unyielding stand against homosexuality, and expressed their opposition in such vitriolic terms, and presented their entire project of opposition as a scriptural imperative on which the fate of western civilization depends, that they have made it nearly impossible for believers to consider these issues with an open mind.

Having taught moral and political philosophy to (arguably) the most conservative undergraduate students in the country (Salt Lake City, Utah), I have learned that direct frontal assaults on religiously grounded belief systems are pointless and inflammatory. To get a hearing, internal dissenters - as opposed to prophets who deliver their messages and move on - must tread lightly and build trust over time. More importantly, unnecessarily blowing up a Christian community by saying something that people are clearly not ready to hear is wrong (not to mention worrisome - I recall something about an offending party’s fate being worse than having a milestone tied around his neck and being cast into the sea).

So I said nothing.

Unfortunately, Julie’s comment provoked such strong negative reactions among various members of our church (both during the service - directed at Julie, and after the service - directed at our pastor) that our pastor convened a special meeting (held yesterday) to discuss Julie’s comment.

Initially, I was angry about the reactionary and ungracious behavior of some of the objectors. However, the more I thought about their reaction, the more sympathetic I became. The people who reacted negatively to Julie's comment were operating on three very reasonable assumptions. The first was that there is unanimous agreement among Christians - or at least among the members of our congregation - that homosexuality is a "sin" issue rather than a "justice" issue. That assumption was reasonable because homosexuality has been condemned as sinful by nearly all Christians, including our own pastor, and no one in our congregation has ever publicly identified themselves as dissenting from that view.

The second assumption was that scripture clearly condemns homosexuality as sinful. That assumption was also reasonable because few Christians - and certainly no one from our pulpit - have ever challenged that premise.

The third assumption was that the bible’s condemnation or endorsement of a particular pattern of conduct provides us with a sufficient justification for rendering a definitive moral judgment on the issue. That assumption was eminently reasonable because few Christians - and certainly no one from our pulpit - have ever challenged that premise. It is the moral theory and/or deliberative strategy taught in almost all of our churches. Philosophers even have a special name for it - the "Divine Command Theory."

I’m moderately confident that assumption two is wrong. I’m far more confident that assumption three is wrong, and I’m absolutely certain that assumption one was wrong. (It has to be wrong, given that I reject the claim that homosexuality is sinful and know of at least one other member of our congregation who shares my view). However, even assuming these assumptions were wrong, they were not unreasonable, and this makes me sympathetic to the people who reacted strongly to Julie’s comment.

So I came out at the special meeting.

Actually, I wanted to come out intentionally, but agreed, after a lengthy "discussion" with my wife prior to the service, that doing so might conflict with our Pastor’s intentions for the meeting. Instead, I outed myself accidentally when I noted that there were people in our congregation sympathetic to Julie’s view - and it was readily apparent from my comments and tone that I was one of them.

But what the hell - I’m out. I’m no longer a closeted supporter of Gay rights at our church. Assumption one has now been obliterated in our congregation. I’ll keep you all updated on where things go from here.

Joe. H

UPDATE

When I said that I was sympathetic to the objectors' response, I meant only that I understood why they felt the way they did. I was not condoning ungracious or uncivil behavior.

Joe. H.

Letter From A Birmingham Jail

Here’s a link to Martin Luther King’s "Letter From A Birmingham Jail.". Those of you who decide to click on this link and spend 20-30 minutes of your extended weekend reading his letter will not be disappointed, particularly if you love justice and moral clarity.

I try to distribute Dr. King’s letter each year during his holiday because it inspires me, and because it reminds me of how much we (Americans - of all races) owe this man. If you doubt that our nation is deeply indebted to Dr. King, read his letter and then consider a what it would have been like for our country to encounter a civil rights movement divorced from Dr. King’s insistence on non-violent means.

I'm just guessing, but if Dr. King (and the many others who stood with him) had not insisted on non-violence, it would have taken this country a lot longer than 40 years to elect a multi-racial president.

Joe H.

The Founders' Great Mistake

Here’s an interesting article that places the blame for the last eight years of miserable governance on the founders. Probably nothing will come of it, but I thought the author’s recommendations were compelling.

Joe H.

Anti-Calvinistic Argument #2 - A Thought Experiment

For those of you who prefer "thought experiment arguments," here's the second installment of my anti-Calvinistic push.

A Calvinist Thought Experiment

Let us stipulate that recreational drug use is morally wrong and that anyone consuming drugs is doing what is morally impermissible. Now suppose there is a drug Z with the following characteristics. Any person exposed to Z while in the womb will automatically develop a lifelong overpowering addiction to Z. This addiction will be such that no matter how hard the addicted individual struggles, they will be unable break their addiction by their own strength. They can, by there own efforts, control the addiction (somewhat) in particular cases of cravings. They can also keep it from becoming an all consuming obsession and destroying their lives completely. But the addiction is ultimately overpowering for all of them, no matter how sincerely they want to quit, and they will continue to use Z all the while knowing that it is morally wrong for them to do so.

Are these "womb exposed" addicts morally responsible for their drug use? Could they justly be blamed or held accountable for their continued drug use? Could any such rule be a just rule? Granted, they each “choose” to use Z, and the desire that compels them to do so is “internal to them,” i.e., they were born that way and their cravings are a part of their existing natures. And yes, they always have the power to resist Z in any particular case of desire, so they “could” have done better in each case of failure. But given that the addiction is genuinely overpowering, can they correctly be blamed for their on-going use of Z?

Suppose further that you have developed an antidote (antidote X) that will break the power of drug Z universally. You own X and possess exclusive rights to X. All resources used in X’s development were yours, and you had no help from anyone in developing it. Thus, you can give X to whomever you wish, but you are obligated to offer it to no one. That is, no one has a right against you to be given X.

Additionally, suppose you are telekinetic and can motivate addicts to psychologically want to receive X from you freely. (A strange side-affect of drug Z, heretofore unmentioned, is that Z distorts people’s perspectives and makes them irrationally distrust YOU in particular.) Finally, suppose that no one owns anything that you consider valuable, so they cannot motivate you to let them purchase X, or trade something for it. They must take it from you freely, or not have it at all.

In short, unless you both offer X to people freely, and motivate them telekinetically to trust you to receive it, they will remain addicted to Z and continue to use Z, no matter how much they would prefer not to be addicted and no matter how guilty they feel about using Z.

Finally, suppose that you decide (for your own indiscernable reasons) to offer X to 1000 people and to telekinetically motivate those 1000 people to take X from you. They thus become drug free and morally upright with respect to drug use. But suppose that you also decide (again, for your own indiscernable reasons) not to do either of these things for 10,000 of their neighbors, so that these people remain addicted to Z. Suppose further that you are the criminal judge for the jurisdiction in which all 11,000 of these people reside and that consumption of Drug Z is criminally prohibited in this jurisdiction.

Could it be “just” for you to sentence the remaining addicts to jail for their drug use? Can you “justly” punish people for the existence of a problem that they, as unique individuals, did not bring upon themselves and have no control over? Or can you “justly” punish these people for the continued existence of a problem that you alone hold the remedy for, but which you will neither offer to them nor enable them to want to receive from you freely?

More importantly, could you punish these 10,000 people severely while credibly claiming to love them? What could you possibly mean by the term “Love” if this were the context in which you were meeting out severe punishment for their use of Z?

It seems to me that you can’t “justly” or “lovingly” follow this course of action, assuming that you are using the terms “justly” and “lovingly” in the way that they are normally used.

It also seems that the situation described in this thought experiment is directly analogous to the God, and to the moral universe, described by Calvinistic theology. This means that we must either abandon Calvinistic theology or the view that God is “just” and “loving.”

I personally think it is wiser to abandon the former. But Calvinists, no doubt, think there is something wrong with this argument, either concerning the analogy itself or the inferences that I have drawn from it.

I welcome a response.

Joe H.

Anti-Calvinistic Argument #1

Here is my first anti-calvinistic argument. I worked this out a while back, but the great thing about philosophical and/or theological arguments (as opposed to legal arguments) is that they need updating far less frequently.

I welcome critique from anyone.

Argument #1

According to Calvinist theology, God is just. God will also punish the wicked for their wicked deeds. However, punishing anyone not deserving to be punished, or punishing anyone excessively, or deficiently, in terms of what they deserve, would be unjust. From these premises it follows that God will punish only those who deserve to be punished, and he will punish them exactly to the extent that they deserve to be punished; no more or no less.

But God is also gracious, and he has himself endured enough punishment to suffice as a surrogate punishment for anyone that he wants to extend his mercy to. For this reason, God can be merciful to human beings without violating his commitment to justice, because he has already endured the “just” penalty for sin. He thus extends mercy to various individuals, whom he chooses at his pleasure and for his own reasons. Upon others he simply imposes his perfect justice.

Of course, a person deserves punishment for committing morally wrong acts if and only if that person is morally responsible for committing those acts. However, no one who is compelled to commit morally wrong acts by any force outside of his or her own autonomous volitional control is morally responsible for committing such acts. The only two exceptions to this principle are:

1) If the person is responsible for the original existence of the force that compels such acts.

or

2) If the person had some opportunity to, by her own free volition, select a remedy that would nullify the force that compels such acts, but rejected that remedy of her own free volition.

Calvinism teaches that human beings naturally commit morally wrong acts. Given the sinfulness of our natures it is impossible for us not to do so, at least some of the time. Our natures compel us to act as we do, and make it impossible for us to act otherwise. In short, our natures constitute, for us, a negatively compelling force that exceeds our (natural) volitional control. We are not free with respect to sin. The fact that we actually “want” or “desire” to sin when we do sin is irrelevant to this point, because our “wants” are not subject to our control. They are just as much a function of our fallen natures as our actions. We cannot “not want” to sin by any act of our own wills, any more than we can continually keep ourselves from obeying our sinful desires. Thus, the fact that the compelling force for sin is “internal to us” does not make us morally responsible for it, or for what it produces. We, as individuals, will be morally responsible for sin only if we are in some way responsible for it’s original, or for it’s continued, existence.

However, Calvinism teaches that all of us were born with sinful natures. None of us (personally) choose to have sinful natures, or did anything that would warrant our deserving such natures prior to our having them. Moreover, there are no natural resources that would allow us to change our natures, assuming that we might desire to do so. As unique moral agents, then, none of us are responsible for the original existence of the force that compels our immoral activity. It precedes, and corrupts, every choice we ever make. Thus, exception #1 of the non-responsibility premise applies to no one.

The only resource available for breaking the power of our sinful natures is the regenerative work of Christ. But as good Calvinists, we also accept the doctrine that we are not free to autonomously choose to participate in the regenerative work of Christ. Christ picks whom he wants for that privilege, and we have nothing what so ever to do with this. Those whom he does not pick are completely unable to pick him from their own resources. Thus, if responding to Christ is the only course of action that will nullify the force that compels our immoral activity, but doing this is completely outside the range of choices that individuals can make from their own volition, it follows that no one who has not experienced Christ’s regenerative work is morally responsible for the continued existence of the force that compels their sin. No one freely rejected the only remedy that could have changed things, since no one was free to choose it in the first place. This means that exception #2 of the non-responsibility premise applies to no one.

But if exceptions #1 and #2 apply to no one, and everyone’s immoral activity stems from a nature that is beyond their volitional control, it follows that no one is ultimately responsible for their immoral acts. And since we agreed that a person deserves punishment for committing morally wrong acts if and only if that person is morally responsible for committing those acts, we must conclude that no one deserves punishment for committing sinful acts, and that God’s punishment of anyone on this account will be unjust. God is then, on the Calvinistic account, both just and unjust.

And because that would be absurd, Calvinism itself is absurd.

Joe H.

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

Bilbo Baggins sent me this very interesting article about the pastor of a Seattle mega-church named Mars Hills. The pastor’s name is Mark Driscoll and, from what I can gather, he sounds like someone that I’d naturally like. Anyone capable of earning the nickname "the cursing pastor" has got to be on to something good. The Mars Hill church, and the social/spiritual environment in which it ministers, are also quite fascinating.

Except, as the article explained, Pastor Driscoll is one of a growing number of pastors currently leading a revival of theological Calvinism. For anyone interested, the article explains the basic teachings of Calvinism, teachings that I think are necessarily wrong and self contradictory for reasons I will provide in upcoming posts.

A bit of warning - sorting through and rejecting Calvinism was a watershed event in my journey as a Christian. There is strong support in the biblical cannon for the teachings of Calvinism. Rejecting these teachings, based on their fundamental incompatibility with the nature of God and his professed love for us, has dramatically altered my relationship to the scriptures. This altered relationship has been a god sent blessing to me, but others have found it to be garden variety heresy.

But I’ll share my thoughts and let you all make your own decision. They are, unsolicited, after all.

I’ll get back to you soon.

Joe H.

More on Financial Meltdown

Here’s another fabulous article on the current financial meltdown by Michael Lewis, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and the author of "Liar’s Poker," and David Einhorn, president of Greenlight Capital, a hedge fund, and the author of "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time.

Disturbing, but highly worth reading (both sections).

Joe H.

The Rule of Law - RIP

Aside from the fact that this state of affairs is absolutely unbelievable in terms of the complete corruption of our political system, what does it say about us, the citizens of this supposedly exceptional country, that so many of us want to simply move on?

Every time I’m reminded about what went on during the last eight years, and our collective response to it, I become deeply troubled regarding the long term viability of the United States as a free country. We’re turning ourselves into sitting ducks for a strongman and almost no one knows or cares.

Joe H.

Scientology and Faith

The death of John Travolta's son Jett has somewhat renewed the public's interest in Scientology, the religion created by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960's. John Travolta is a well known practitioner.

Scientology, and the practitioners of Scientology, have always interested me. For one thing, I've always admired L. Ron Hubbard for the same reason I admired Gene Roddenberry - both men took their degrees in philosophy and made a boatload of money. That was something I was never able to do.

Additionally, in creating Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard accomplished something that even Plato thought impossible. In Plato's Republic, Socrates was challenged to prove that justice is better than injustice. To this end, Socrates engaged in a prolonged thought experiment in which he and his interlocutors (mostly Socrates) designed an "ideal city." Their city featured a strict merit based qualification system for joining the guardian and ruler classes. When his interlocutors pointed out that the excluded citizens might resent their exclusion with an intensity that could destabilize the city, Socrates proposed propagating an elaborate myth (the "Myth of the Metals") in which each person's status and membership in their respective class was explained and grounded in the historic will of the divine.

When asked if it would be possible to convince the City's citizens that this myth was true, Socrates conceded the impossibility of convincing the first generation of citizens. But he expressed confidence that successive generations - further removed in time from the city's founding -would readily accept the myth, and that it would stabilize the city's class structure.

L. Ron Hubbard, having a slightly lower regard for the masses, created an elaborate science-fiction based myth regarding the origins and nature of our world, nearly out of whole cloth, and sold it to millions of first generation believers as a credible cosmology. That's a truly impressive feat. Hubbard's closest rival in this field of work would seem to be Joseph Smith. But Smith's work, however impressive in terms of his success with first generation believers, relied upon the pre-existing Christian narrative, which Smith simply extended to the Americas (while introducing several interesting theological innovations along the way).

This shortcoming in Smiths' cosmology leaves L. Ron Hubbard in a class by himself. However, I suspect that Rhonda Byrne's "The Secret" may eventually supplant Scientology as America's most beloved ex-nihlo cosmology - it is far more simple and seductive than Scientology and requires far less effort of its practitioners.

Americans' acceptance of Scientology and "the Secret" both remind me of why being a person of faith is a bit unnerving. The worldview of "the Secret" is particularly infantile and narcissistic - why, after all, would the universe be arranged so as to cater to my thoughts and bring me blessings on demand (the so called "law of attraction")? Yet millions of people bought the book and CD because they (like me) wanted desperately to believe in such a reality.

Okay, Ophra helped. But still!

I, too, want to believe in the "law of attraction," just like I've long wanted to believe that the tremendous bio-diversity existing on our planet is the product of 8 people and male and female pairs of each kind of animal exiting a very large boat approximately 5000 years ago. Both beliefs would make my life easier. But I've lost the capacity for the kind of faith that makes such beliefs possible.

The best I can do is exercise what I call "informed faith." Pure faith is no longer an option.

Joe H.

Book Recommendations

One of my regular recreational activities is to wander around Borders (the bookstore) looking for something to read. In fact, I did this just yesterday. This event gave rise to the thought that some of you might like to get recommendations, based on what I found worthwhile during the previous year.

If this seems a tad presumptuous, remember the title of my blog.

I don't generally read fiction (although last year I did read "A Thousand Splendid Suns" by Khaled Hosseini,the author of "The Kite Runner," both of which I whole-heartedly recommend. The books listed below are non-fiction, interesting, and very informative. I've recommended them in the order I preferred them.

TOP FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. "E=MC2" by David Bodanis. This is a biography of the famous equation. It was easy to read and absolutely fascinating. You'll learn a great deal about scientific history, the roles that real human beings (with all their warts)played in the discoveries leading up to Einstein's discovery, and theoretical physics, all the while enjoying yourself immensely.

2. "Electric Universe" by David Bodanis. Almost as good as "E=MC2" for the same reasons. I loved it.

3. "Moral Clarity" by Susan Neiman. Parts of this book will stretch those of you lacking a philosophical background. But its mostly readable and well worth the effort to wade through the thick parts. After reading the book and listening to Michelle Obama express her views, its clear to me that Obama has read and absorbed Neiman's work. I found Neiman's argument convincing and important.

4. "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. She chronicles, in her words, the way in which America's "War on Terror" turned into a war on American ideals. Mayer also chronicles the many efforts made by heroic lawyers and other officials within the government to stop America's torture program.

5. "Gay Marriage" by Jonathan Rauch. This book came out a few years ago, but I reread it this year and highly recommend it. Rauch is a gay conservative. He is also one of the most intelligent and clear writers I have ever encountered. In "Gay Marriage," Rauch develops a convincing conception of what marriage is and proceeds to develop an intelligent, systematic, thoroughly convincing, and inherently conservative argument in favor of Gay Marriage. A must read for supporters and opponents of gay marriage alike.

While I'm at it, I'd recommend anything Rauch has ever written, including "Kindly Inquisitors." That book is a bit dated, but its still highly worth reading for anyone wanting to understand what counts as knowledge in the modern world, and why, and how our modern system of knowledge creation is far superior to previous and/or alternative arrangements. Rauch also offers a sustained and convincing argument that attempts to regulate speech (even when they are well intentioned) pose an existential threat to our modern system of knowledge creation, and therefore must be resisted. You can probably get this book on line at "Half.com." Easily readable and most highly recommended.


Happy reading!

Joe H.