Experimental philosophy really started to get traction in John Locke’s engaging answer to William Molyneux’s thought experiment about the individual blind from birth who suddenly gets his vision. What happens? In a daring experiment, which gives the subtitle to the book, Crashing Through: The Man Who Dared to See (Kurson 2007), Mike May’s immune system was chemically “killed” so that a stem cell transplant could be used to restore the nerves in his retina. As a result, May’s eyes and optics were restored to a state that was near perfect. This is in contrast to the experience of the visual world that he encountered after the bandages were removed following the last in a series of operations to restore his sight. The operation was a success in that the optical apparatus was functioning as designed. But there was a “but…” In short, the auto at which May was supposedly looking did not make sense as a visual experience. More precisely, Mike’s visual experience of the auto or other things did not make sense. His visual apparatus did not make sense out of the inputs that the experience of the would-be yellow auto was providing. His visual apparatus did integrate the input caused by the auto (which auto, of course, was available through other sensory modes). Given his visual experience, Mike was inferring that the auto was yellow; he was not in direct contact with the yellow station wagon. Note well that Mike May was inferring that the auto was yellow, which means he was not directly in touch with it – this was not normal. This must be underscored. May’s use of inference to get in touch visually with the auto was significantly different than what everyone else does. In spite of all the operations, he did not have normal vision. The swirling constellation of colors and shapes did not have sense as a coherent, unified, objective thing with a spatial boundary. This counts towards Searle’s naïve realistic point that viewers do not infer things, they see them, relate to them, interact with them, etc. However, this also counts as evidence that sense and the sense of objects in the world is constituted by acts of intentionality that are prepredicative, nonlinguistic, nonverbal – in this case, acts of intentional synthesis of the kind invoked by the later Husserl. What did you think the experiment was going to show?
One lesson? Maybe the experiments collected by Knobe and Nichols (Knobe and Nichols, Experimental Philosophy) were good, but they were not that good. Maybe the analysis was good, but not that good. The idea that analytic philosophy – or any philosophy (Continental, Oriental, etc.) – has to be protected from experimental philosophy is questionable. (See http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2009/11/levin-on-xphi.html – a site worth noting in any case.)
Another lesson? Philosophers ignore the advances of empirical science at their own peril. It is particularly interesting when diverse Gedanken experiments have the brains (central nervous systems (CNS)) of individuals hooked up by imaginary wires. Depending on where you draw the system boundary, different philosophical paradoxes arise. (This deserves further discussion, forthcoming.) Meanwhile, science advances. Then it turns up that people are indeed already hooked up by the action of mirror neurons. True, there is still action-at-a-distance – but that makes it even more interesting. This is also where the connection with empathy occurs (though this post does not explore it.) Philosophers then have to change the Gedanken experiment so that the hook is not too similar to what we now know to be the case in the everyday world – we are corrected in fundamental ways experientially as our organisms resonate in reaction to one another. Please do not tell me that Descartes ever envisioned that one as he sat alone in his warm room meditating on first philosophy.
The third lesson? The main threat to analytic philosophy (or continental philosophy or your choice of philosophy) is not experimental philosophy. It is analytic philosophy and please make the corresponding substitutions for Continental, Oriental, etc. As soon as philosophers loose touch with the method of sustained inquiry that drove Socrates, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Austin, etc. the game is up. What Kant called “dialectical illusion” looms large and curious puzzles take the place of fundamental inquiry into the big issues that attract students, professionals, people to philosophy in the first place. Further details on the strengths and limitations of experimental philosophy are to be found in an unpublished essay by yours truly on the relevance of neuro-phenomenology to the philosophy of empathy subtitled “The Light Goes on!” at this site.

Say hello to the winners of the “who is your favorite character poll”…Sawyer and Sayid. Before we look at the favorite characters lets look at who didn’t get any votes:
- Jack: I guess he really does cry to much for his own good. No one voted for the fearless leader! It’s like teenage mutant ninja turtles, everyone loves Michelangelo and Rafael but there’s no love for Leonardo. All Jack’s done is keep the survivors together, safe and given them hope. Plus he has a sick golf game.
- Kate: This surprised me more than anything else. I thought we’d have SOME Kate lovers. She’s a hott bad ass rebel with a heart of gold. She can fight, track, shoot and steal, what’s not to love about Kate?? Who else could manipulate a gang to rob a bank for a toy airplane??
- Charlie: Everyone’s not so favorite junky rockstar. I agree with this non pick. While I like Charlie he hasn’t really done anything that stands out. He is an underachiever among superstars (Locke, Sayid, Kate, Jack, Sawyer I’m looking at you). His codependence on Prego is pretty annoying and someone needs to tell him that he is not Aaron’s dad.
- Prego (Claire):  I like Claire, I just don’t love her. I do however love the psychic story line so I’m hoping the writers take her character somewhere beyond the crying mom that’s always defending her baby.
- Boone: He probably died too early in the series for people to really get attached to. Then there was the thing where his banged his hott step sister. Not sure if that helps or hurts his cause. Props for being Locke’s understudy, getting seriously injured while on the plane radio and for accepting his death in order to conserve the already scarce medicine.
- Sticks (Shannon): You all know she is not my favorite character. Sadly she also died too early (my bad). She could have made a comeback with the whole looking for Walt mission but I think it was too little to late.
- Michael: The character I hate most. What’s most frustrating is I only hate him when he’s dealing with Walt. If he’s looking for Walt or talking to Walt I want him to moonwalk right into the defense mechanism/invisible dino. When he’s playing with the adults (raft building time with Sawyer & Jin) then I really like Michael. Plus points for building the raft, minus points for bailing on your kid shortly after he was born.
- Walt: It was going to be really hard for the kid to get some votes. You got to like the fact that everything seems to go his way except of course when he gets kidnapped by The Others. I’m hoping he gets rescued and becomes more of an interesting character.
- Sun: I’m pretty shocked that no one voted for her. I think Sun is such a deep and intriguing character. She runs a garden, learns english on the sly and stays with her husband even though it may not be the best choice at the time. I forgot to put Jin up there and I hope he would have gotten at least one vote. He seems to be loyal to Michael and Sawyer and he still loves Sun. I’m looking forward to Jin developing as a more complete and beloved character.

Now onto the characters that did receive votes:
- Hurley (2 votes):  Known best by the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 for creating a golf course and hosting junkfood-thanksgiving, Hurley is probably the most well liked survivor. Add the ingredients that he can’t keep a secret, is worth a $130M, and knows about the numbers, and you have a lovable character.
- Someone I haven’t met yet (3 votes): I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this is either Mr. Ed (Eko) or Desmond. I don’t know much about Desmond but Eko rocks. He saved my favorite character (Sawyer) and doesn’t listen to Mean Bitch (Ana). I also love that he gave up speaking for 40 days.
- Locke (3 votes): John Locke, the man, the myth, the legend. Conned out of a kidney by his own father, crippled for a so far unexplained reason, un-crippled for a so far unexplained reason, master hunter, master tracker, hatch discoverer, hatch opener and of course ALWAYS knows what is troubling the survivors (and often helps them through it). Minus points for the preachy faith thing, otherwise full fledge bad ass.

And the WINNERS are (2-way tie):
- Sayid: I think I know why people love Sayid. He’s tough, he always knows what to do and he’s always fixing some ridiculous electronic device. He tends to fly off the handle a bit but that’s just part of his charm. I have high hopes for Sayid. I’m still holding out hope that he will meet his great Iraqi love if (when?) they get off the island. I also think he will be a key contributor because he’ll fix some yet to be seen device to get them to safety. Sayid you are a winner!

- Sawyer
My favorite character. He’s the survivor you are supposed to hate but like Kate you can’t help falling in love. Like every misunderstood bad boy with a complicated and tragic past, he tries to do the right thing when you least expect it (telling Jack about his father, attempting to protect Walt). He also shares my hobbies of nicknames and doesn’t let the fact that he’s on a deserted island get in the way of him having the exact amount of bad boy scruff. Looking forward to Sawyer becoming more domesticated with Kate as the show moves along…

Thanks to everyone that voted in the poll and please vote on the next Poll: If you were stuck on the island you would most likely be found doing which activity:….

Aquí os presento una agenda de acontecimientos para el próximo año, en el que todos los amantes de Lost esperamos que nos entusiasmen con el final de la serie.

17 de enero 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Naveen Andrews (Sayid)

2 de febrero 2010. Emisión capítulo 1 y 2, season 6. “La X” (Multicéntrico)

9 de febrero 2010. Emisión capítulo 3, season 6. “What Kate Does”/”Lo que hace Kate”

2 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 4, season 6. “The Sustitute”/”El sustituto” (Locke)

9 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 5, season 6. “Lighthouse”/”Faro” (Jack)

16 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 6, season 6. “Sundown”/”Puesta de sol” (Sun y Jin)

23 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 7, season 6. “Dr. Linus” (Ben)

27 de marzo 2010. 40º cumpleaños de Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet)

30 de marzo 2010. Emisión capítulo 8, season 6. “Recon”/”Nueva estafa” (Sawyer)

17 de abril 2010. 43º cumpleaños de Henry Ian Cusick (Desmond)

28 de abril 2010. 37º cumpleaños de Jorge García (Hugo)

7 de mayo 2010. 63º cumpleaños de Alan Dale (Widmore)

25 de mayo 2010. 5 años desde el final de la emisión de la primera temporada en la ABC

6 de junio 2010. 36º cumpleaños de Sonya Walger (Penny)

14 de julio 2010. 44º cumpleaños de Matthew Fox (Jack)

15 de julio 2010. 58º cumpleaños de Terry O’Quinn (Locke)

20 de julio 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Josh Holloway (Sawyer)

3 de agosto 2010. 31º cumpleaños de Evangeline Lilly (Kate)

4 de agosto 2010. 42º cumpleaños de Daniel Dae Kim (Jin)

7 de septiembre 2010. 56º cumpleaños de Michael Emerson (Ben)/ 55º cumpleaños de Mira Furlan (Rousseau)

22 de septiembre 2010. Se cumplen 6 años de la emisión del capítulo piloto en la ABC

8 de octubre 2010. 41º cumpleaños de Jeremy Davies (Faraday)

7 de noviembre 2010. 37º cumpleaños de Yunjin Kim(Sun)

1 de diciembre 2010. 42º cumpleaños de Néstor Carbonell (Richard)

8 de diciembre 2010. 33º cumpleaños de Dominic Monaghan (Charlie)

27 de diciembre 2010. 28º cumpleaños de Emilie de Ravin (Claire)

Aquí tenemos una promo de la próxima temporada:

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy.  I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine.  He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People.  Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization.  The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses .  Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseau talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will.  Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him.  The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies.  Bottom-up. 

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings.  She called him a communist.  But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist.  And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection.  It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first. 

 As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought.  It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works.  It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned. 

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is.  It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address.  But those are the topics for further posts…

• That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

Locke 'N Load

The political philosophy of John Locke greatly influenced our Founding Fathers. This is evident by the long passages of Second Treatise of Government which were reproduced word for word in the Declaration of Independence. Locke’s ideas go on to influence the drafting of The Constitution of the United States of America, the oldest constitution that is still in use today. Amended into that document in 1791 was the Bill of Rights, which ensures us basic liberties. Most of us are familiar with these rights which include, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and others (The Constitution). However, some citizens question the logic of the 2^nd Amendment, who’s text is reproduced below. The goal of this post is to make the logic of John Locke and our Founding Fathers clear regarding the inclusion of the 2^nd Amendment into our Bill of Rights.

Text from The Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Text in Simple English:
“People have the right to have weapons, for example guns.”

The arguments in opposition of our 2^nd Amendment Rights are based on the false notion that by living in a politic society with a common judge we have no need for weapons. In order for us to warrant nullifying the 2^nd Amendment, we would have to show that there exist no cases in which a firearm or weapon could be used in a civil society. I will attempt to counter this reasoning by demonstrating that the philosophy of John Locke—one of the political and philosophical cornerstones that our nation was founded upon—has provisions in which the use of force, and thus, the use of weapons, would be permitted even in a modern civil society such as America.

First let us make clear Locke’s philosophies, beginning with the state of nature. In short, humans existed in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke §4). This state is governed by one law, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke §6), this is the law of nature. Locke provides yet another state, called the state of war which is “a state of enmity and destruction…[arising from] designs upon another man’s life” (Locke §16). When we are put into a state of war, we have the right to take the life of that individual who has initiated this state of war and whom “has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away from him, or any one that joins with him in his defense” (Locke §16). As Americans, we have left this state of nature, for “want of a common judge with authority” (Locke §19).

This is where some Americans become confused with regards to the philosophy of Locke. ust because we have left this state of nature and relinquished our executive rights to a common judge does not mean that we need to relinquish our weapons as well. There are many cases in which there is neither the time, nor the option to seek remedy from a common judge.

A mugging for example. By using force, a mugger attempting to acquire your property is not only threatening to take that property, but, we can deduce, also threatening your life. For, if he is so willing to use unlawful force to acquire material goods, if he were to have you fully under his power, what would stop him from taking your life? The mugger merely poses the question, “your money or your life”. The mugger has not given you a choice, you “could not have time to appeal to the law to secure [your life], and when it was gone it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to [your] dead carcass. The loss was irreparable; which to prevent the law of Nature gave [you] a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with [you] and threatened [your] destruction” (Locke §207). Locke’s philosophy holds true and we are given the right to defend ourselves, even if that means taking the life of the mugger. The mugger’s use of “force without right upon a [your] person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (Locke §19).

“Where there is, and is not, a common judge”, this shows that Locke’s philosophy holds even after we have chosen to leave the state of nature by seeking a common judge with authority. Thus, Locke’s philosophies do allow for the use of force by the citizenry to defend themselves in situations in which there is no option of an appeal to a common judge. Next time you are posed with the question, “your money or your life”, choose both. Our 2^nd amendment rights allow us to deal with those noxious animals—with fisticuff or firearm—who seek to impose their will upon us using unlawful force.

Works Cited:

The Constitution of the United States (1787).
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1680. Print.

There are multiple possible claims that give one title to property but two of the most persuasive are; who is in control of the land currently and who has historic claims to the land. I believe that this framework allows for a Lockeian analysis of land rights regarding the Israeli-Palestine debate. Locke specifically states his views on property inheritance and political obligations towards a conquering state in Chapter 16: Of Conquest, of his The Second Treatise on Government and how they relate to an individual and a state. These arguments can be used to further the debate over which political or social group holds a right to the land currently called Israel. A Lockeian perspective allows us to consider the efficacy of each side’s argument.

Approaching this debate from a Lockeian point of view starts with the idea of the right to paternal inheritance. Locke states that every man is born with the “right, before any other man, to inherit with his brethren his father’s goods” (Second Treatise of Government, Locke, pg. 338 Section 190), which seems like a fairly straightforward argument for the side of the Israelis; they controlled the land prior to their exile by foreign invaders. This argument though can only be upheld if one forgets the time prior to Israeli occupation. In fact this argument can only work between single generations. A man can only hold the right to his father’s land, not his grandfather’s nor his great-grandfather’s unless it has been passed to his father. And so we can see that this idea does not support Israeli control of the land. It is similar to the saying “possession is nine tenths of the law”; since the Palestinians have held the land for such an extended period of time, one could argue that in Locke’s view they now hold the rights to it.

The next argument one might make after reading Locke is the idea concerning the obligation of a controlled people towards occupying foreign governments. He states that “A government of a conqueror, imposed by force, on the subdued…has no obligation upon them” (Locke, pg. 338 section 187) which means that those under control of a foreign power are not obligated to obey the government. In the Israeli-Palestine debate one could argue that since the original citizens were invaded and exiled, that they have no obligation to the government and thus can take back the land that was taken from them. From this point of view the Israelis have every right to return to their ancestral homes and remove the Palestinians. This argument falls through though if one considers the fact that they were exiled. Since the government removed the people from the country they no longer were part of the government, and thus cannot revolt against it. The gradual return of the Israeli people to the land over time has reversed their exile, but since they returned the government is no longer a foreign power and thus they must oblige by its rule.

This is not to say that Locke would not want the Jewish people to have a specific homeland. Locke believes that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession” (Locke, pg. 287 section 6) and from this one can deduce the idea that he would have wanted retribution for the Jewish people after what happened to them in World War 2. This does not give them the right to the land, unless both parties agree to the terms. Though a solution cannot be found, we can begin to understand the ideas behind claims to the land, and see the different aspects of the argument.

f

Ok i’ll bite…what’s in the damn hatch?? I seriously was only going to watch one episode before I went to bed last night but then Locke is banging on the hatch and it lit up! Finally I’m going to get some answers…cut to episode credits. OK I’ll only watch ONE more episode just so I can finally see what’s in the damn hatch…cut to Locke/hatch are no where to be found in the entire episode!! How did you people survive watching this show week by week?? Especially when the show was running with off weeks. This alone made me feel vindicated in waiting all these years to finally begin watching the show. I’ll only have to deal with this frustration for one season. I understand I missed countless theory conversations and internet easter egg hunts but I think the hatch episodes would have killed me. There had better be something good in that hatch….

So the recap: Locke begins to lose his ability to walk but gains the ability to see the future/hear what the island is telling him. We are also treated to another compelling Locke flashback. So far I think Locke is the most interesting and layered character on the show. He’s got it all. He’s a foster child with abandonment issues, he was conned by his own mother and father for a kidney, he was cripple for 4 (NUMBERS) years (presumably from said kidney surgery?) and of course…by day he’s a mild mannered Walmart/box company employee, but by night he’s an expert tracker, hunter, knife thrower and jack of all trades. Plus he seems to understand everyone and knows exactly what they need. Locke is bad ass. Unfortunately he’s now got Boone’s death on his conscience. After his bloody Boone vision, some part of him had to know that Boone wasn’t coming away with roses from that plane. I think we can safely say Boone died a hero. He risked his last healthy seconds trying to get out a ma-day and successfully let someone know that the folks of flight 815 (NUMBERS) survived. Unfortunately for Boone he’s going home with a t-shirt that says “I risked my life for the survivors of oceanic flight 815 and all I got was this lousy case of heroin”. Sorry Charlie heroin is back in play…

I won’t totally skate over Jack’s 3rd flashback but I have to say I found it a little boring. Jack saved his future wife on the operating table and they fell happily in love and got married. No doubt we are in store for another flashback about how they got divorced or more likely how she died. Otherwise I can’t believe Jack would be so interested in Kate. I think I was more let down by the episode because there was no hatch. Yes it was great of Jack to heroically give his blood to Boone, yes Jin showed humanity in helping Prego and yes Kate delivered the devil baby to the world but…what was that light??

Next up we find out what’s in the hatch or I’ll jump out of my window. Also Sticks (Shannon) will have to deal some severe issues since her step-brother-lover-from-another-mother died while she was away playing a game of blue lagoon with Sayid…

A 6. évad hivatalos sajtóközleményéből kiderült, hogy a két órás (6×01-6×02 – LA X) premiernek vetítési dátuma 2009. február 2-a. Ezen a napon kezdődik a Lost utolsó évada. Az, hogy ilyen későn kezdődik, valószínűleg azt is jelenti, hogy nem lesz szünet februárban, a téli olimpia miatt sem. A sajtóközleményből hivatalosan az állandó szereplőket is meg tudtuk, bár számunkra nincs benne túl sok újdonság:

• Naveen Andrews -mint- Sayid
• Nestor Carbonell -mint- Richard Alpert
• Emilie de Ravin -mint- Claire
• Michael Emerson -mint- Ben
• Jeff Fahey -mint- Frank Lapidus
• Matthew Fox -mint- Jack
• Jorge Garcia -mint- Hurley
• Josh Holloway -mint- Sawyer
• Daniel Dae Kim -mint- Jin
• Yunjin Kim -mint Sun
• Ken Leung -mint- Miles
• Evangeline Lilly -mint- Kate
• Terry O’Quinn -mint- Locke
• Zuleikha Robinson -mint- Ilana

Hurley creates a golf course  and starts a census (I’m starting to love him), Prego (Claire) has a freaky past and is kidnapped by Tom Cruises’ cousin (Ethan?), Sahid finds Frenchy, Charlie is almost hung to death and Kate risks it all for a…um…toy airplane?? Now I know hindsight is 20-20 but if I’m Kate’s mom I’m advising her to stay away from planes of all kinds, they’ll only get you arrested and stuck on deserted islands. I should have known something sinister was afoot when we were ACTUALLY going to get an answer! Jack makes Kate show us what’s in the envelope! For Kate to conspire in holding up a bank it must be…the Kennedy assassination papers?…info on the Roswell landing?…bank account numbers?…family jewelry?? Nope just more questions in the form of a toy airplane. At least Kate tells us/Jack that’s she’s responsible for the death of someone she loves. Finally some info on why Kate is so broken. The writing on this show is clearly top notch and you have to love the subtlety of Sawyer being the one that helps Kate find the suitcase while Jack helps her re-retrieve it (from Sawyer of course), open it and eventually is the the one she confides her secrets to. I still think she’s gonna pick Sawyer.

Now not to burry the lead but The Others kidnapped Prego! I guess I was totally wrong about The Others being the people from the other half of the plane which is bad news for me and Rose who is heart warningly still holding out hope her husband is still alive (sucker!). Prego’s backstory is my favorite so far. Her clairvoyant psychic (ha get it) either sends her to her death OR sends her to the island. Maybe the psychic knows about The Others and wants them to have the baby. Or maybe The Others are just a creep cult that want to worship the devil baby. Either way can’t the tribe do better than “the trail went cold”. Jack has the right idea, find Frenchy and torture everything she knows about the island and The Others out of her! At least go back to Frenchy’s hideout and see if you can use any of her equipment to get off the island!

And then there’s the hatch (wow a lot of things are going on right now).  What the hell could here in there? The lab where the invisible dinosaur was created?The source of all the crazy magic? Something that I don’t quite understand (and maybe someone can explain it) was how did Locke escape the invisible dino-thing? Or was he being attached by a boar? I didn’t get it but after he came back he was talking all this “I’ve seen the heart of the island” mumbo-jumbo and I thought maybe he knows something the rest of the tribe doesn’t.  Well I hope it’s how to make TNT because if he wants to open that hatch I think he’s gonna need to blast…

Finally I need to say something about Hurley. He’s the man. It’s about time someone on this island decided to have some fun. Just wait till he discovers Kate and Sawyer’s swimming blue lagoon and starts games of chicken and marco polo (writers please any excuse to see more footage of Sticks in a bathing suit). Conversely I’m hating Michael. He really needs to treat Walt like a person instead of just yelling at him all the time…and not offering his son a chance to golf when it was his turn up…that’s just cold. I’m not sure what’s going on but first you abandon your kid and now you just yell at him all the time. You won’t be receiving the magic island father of the year award anytime soon..

Next up Boone and Locke try to open the hatch and I’m hoping for a spectacular rescue mission for Prego led by Locke. Those guns from Kate’s briefcase just might come in handy…

I’m as bad as my word. My Friday afternoon was spent watching the first disc of season 1 and I’m hooked. What the hell is going on?? Kate is the prisoner…didn’t see that one coming. Locke is/was a cripple with a life dream of hosting his own edition of “Man vs. Wild”…definitely didn’t see that one coming. Until the episode “Walkabout” (bravo job on the naming writers) I thought the colonel was Lost’s version of Creed (although having a 1-900 gal as his love interest does no favors for his creepiness factor). So what sums up my thinking after 4 episodes….um what the hell is going on?? What could Kate have done that caused a $23K bounty on her head? I’m going to go with misunderstanding here because I think she’s good at heart. Why does Jack/Charlie keep seeing a man in a suit? And how is the hobbit going to hold up when he has to go through withdrawal on a deserted island??

So after 4 episodes I think I’ve reached a point to make some predictions. Um I’m thinking the dinosaur thing is invisible?? I also find it very suspicious that the french chick keeps counting up. I don’t think Doc Brown had that voice counting technology in 1988 (2004-16yrs) and I’m assuming she hasn’t been sitting around on the island just counting away for eternity. As far as the french chick goes, she seemed like she knew exactly who she was talking to in that help message which makes me think her and her demised companions went to the island on purpose, or at least she did. I also think Rose’s line about her husband surviving is alluding to these mysterious others I’ve heard about. And on that note, how the hell did anyone survive if the plane got ripped in half at that elevation??

Well one CD down and lots more to go. I’m not sure how the show is going to deal with time so who knows when prego’s gonna pop. So far in 4 episodes we’ve traveled 4 days. At this rate she might give birth by season 2. Not sure how they’ll handle that little kid growing up…

Michael Giacchino

Michael Giacchino meio que ainda era desconhecido no circuito comercial quando seu nome apareceu nos créditos do piloto de Lost. Só que o que o circuito comercial não imaginava é que o cara era tão bom que conseguil compor uma obra-prima sonora a cada cana da série e ainda sim, fazer um score fantástico com uma espécie de resumo do que se passava nos episódios.

O cara traz acordes mais do que originais, nunca vistos antes e compõe, talvez, a melhor trilha sonora original para uma série de TV. Pois tudo que Giacchino faz em Lost é o que os outros compositores de séries não fazem: se preocupa com cada momento onde a trilha será imposta e sim, angaria uma pretensão muito importante para que a trilha não se apague em meio a ação transloucada da série.

Pra começar arregaçando tudo, a primeira faixa do score resumo é uma das mais enigmáticas dos últimos tempos e com uma riqueza original pouco vista. A Main Title possui apenas dezesseis segundos, mas como é passada na abertura também enigmática e misteriosa da série não é nada mais além do que genial.

The Eyeland é muito misteriosa, silenciosa e com sons que vou admitir não conhecer. Mas tem um final ao piano crescente que suga o coração do espectador e o mostra do que se trata a ilha: mistério e agonia.

World’s Worst Beach Party tem batidas constantes e regulares que soam estranhas ao sons maravilhosos que Giacchino produz com sei lá o quê mas que de tão original já vale a pena ser ouvida. Com outro crescente, só que sem piano, apenas com algumas cordas desafinadas (pelo menos é o que parece) e as batucadas esse crescente é arregaçador, ainda mais quando cria variações de tempo e termina seco.

Começa aqui o talento de Giacchino em compor belezas melancólicas para o drama dos personagens. Muito usada nos episódios, claro, em variações, Credit Where Credit Is Due começa meio tímida e parte pra tocar agente com o seu decorrer, daí, os celos se tornam mágicos e simplistas empregando ao som algo de solitário em alguns momentos, mas mantendo a união dos personagens metaforicamente falando.

Faixa feita pra cenas de ação, Run Like, Um…Hell? é corrida em seu ritmo e rica em detalhes sonoros que proporcionam mais angústia à quem está vendo determinada cena.

Uma das faixas mais marcantes de toda a série até hoje é sem dúvida nenhuma Hollywood And Vines que até hoje pode ser escutada mesmo na quinta temporada quando o clima é de aventura transloucadamente cega. Tem um ritmo intrigante e uma batida contida e acaba num grito instrumental maravilhoso. E sim, é a faixa perfeita para uma aventura transloucadamente cega.

Just Die Already é praticamente uma variação de Credit Where Credit Is Due só que mais tocante e simples. Rápida como é, serve apenas para momentos rápidos de tristeza dos personagens sem ser em uma cena muito longa.

Me And My Big Mouth é uma das minhas preferidas. Até porque contêm o primeiro rastro do som rápido e cortante que o piano de Giacchino sempre faz ao acabar um episódio com uma incógnita mais angustiante ainda.

Crocodile Locke, como o nome já deixa claro, é uma música feita para o personagem que ela dá nome. Intrigante, sonoramente baixa, com os ares autorais de Giacchino que começam a se tornar realidade no meio do score, tem pingos sonoros e um piano compassadamente demorado, para criar uma espécie de terror unido com intriga que já é uma marca única de Giacchino hoje em dia (e acho que de sempre).

Talvez minha faixa favorita do cara, Win One For the Reaper é outra que cresceu na série com suas variações e é também a mais melancólica escrita por Giacchino até hoje. O safado joga um piano simples, que foge até um pouco (ou todo) do score e pronto. A música já me fez chorar em uma penca de episódios, e sempre que algo triste(realmente triste) acontece, pode ter certeza de que ela estará lá, e pelo menos fará escorrer umas lágrimas de mim. E quando o piano vai pro aguda fode tudo e eu me desmancho.

Departing Sun já é uma variação e segue na mesma base das outras músicas melancólicas, só que sem a “despretensão” de Win One For the Reaper , que acaba transformando a faixa em uma melancólico/autoral de Giacchino e é muito usada para cenas de despedida. Aqui com título da personagem Sun, teve grande importância em um episódio para a vida da personagem.

Charlie Hangs Around é uma das mais angustiantes e também uma de minhas preferidas. Tem um puta crescente e arranca uma agonia de quem está vendo sem precisar forçar nada.

É, como Charlie passou por momentos muito difíceis ganhou duas faixas com seu nome, e uma delas, a Charlie Hangs Around é triste pra desgrama e vem com a sonoridade mais lenta e mais cortante da variação de Credit Where Credit Is Due. Essa é feita pra chorar.

Como o próprio título diz, We’re Friends pode parecer melancólica a primeira vista, ainda mais se ouvida separadamente da série. Mas unida aos episódios e depois de alguns segundos percebemos isso mesmo sem precisar ver a série, ela tem um crescente que dá uma puta sensação de união e que faz dela uma das mais legais de ser escutada.

Getting Ethan tá ali pra fazer barulho e dar um climão de ação. Consegue muito bem seu objetivo e se sobressai a qualquer faixa de ação de outros scores de hoje em dia pelo simples fato de Giacchino ser o cara mais autoral de hoje em matéria de trilhas sonoras. E a cena em que a música toda e intitula é tudo o que a música propõe.

Propondo um clima de saudade, Thinking Clairely traz um ar de vazio e tristeza sem se destacar muito.

A penúltima faixa, e uma de minhas prefeidas,I’ve Got A Plane To Catch é por mais incrível que pareça dançante, animada, divertida e chacoalhante. Sim, não consigo pelo menos mexer meu pé enquanto a ouço. Ponto pra Giacchino.

Giancchino não poupa ninguém, e reserva para sua última faixa, Monsters Are Such Interesting People muito barulho e acordes único e autorais sem nunca querer fazer um som de despedida ou nostalgia como muitos terminam em seus scores(como o próprio Giacchino que termina o score de star trek assim), mas é rápida e objetiva como todo o álbum que arregaça tudo que a TV já viu em matéria de trilha sonora e até mesmo o cinema!

5/5

On Tuesday, November 3, voters of Washtenaw County rejected a proposal to raise their property taxes.  The revenue generated by the millage was supposed to go to the Washtenaw County public school system, comprised of 10 districts with the money being distributed to these districts on a per-pupil basis. (Michigan Daily)  The debate over this millage sparked my interest as I began to consider the perspectives of Locke and Rousseau on this issue.  I’ve concluded that although both are democratic, Rousseau would likely have been opposed to the outcome of the vote, whereas Locke would have supported the voters’ decision.

Rousseau asserts that the answer to the disaster that society has become is to form an association “which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate” (Wootten, pg. 432). His ideal form of government acts in a manner that is consistent with the general will.  He states, “the general will is always right and always tends toward the public utility” (Wootton, pg. 437).  He also warns that the populace is not corrupted, but it is often tricked (Wootton, pg. 437).  With the foundation for Rousseau’s thought in place, I hope to illustrate why Rousseau would oppose the outcome of the millage vote.  In a recent survey of Washtenaw County, 54% of adult voters favored a countywide enhancement millage for schools (mlive.com).  According to this statistic (which I am assuming to be a direct reflection of all Washtenaw County residents) a majority of residents favored education, so the proposed millage should have passed.  Yet the millage was not passed, and therefore Rousseau may have argued that the rejection of this millage is inconsistent with the general will.   Rousseau could also argue that the personal advantages of lower taxes may have “tricked” individuals into voting against the millage.  In this instance, it would be appropriate for the government (of Washtenaw County) to intervene and enact the millage, thereby “forcing” the voters to be free, since it is in the interest of the general will.  The fact that Rousseau would support government intervention to tax personal property is at odds with the purpose of government according to Locke.

Locke’s chief end of government was to protect the people’s property.  Locke states, “the power of society…can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure everyone’s property” (Wootton, pg. 321).  With this statement, I will extrapolate to say that Locke would have supported the voters of Washtenaw County, who he sees as the supreme power in civil society.  Contrary to Rousseau, Locke would not support the government overriding the vote in favor of the “general will” as it infringes on the citizen’s personal property.  Therefore, the government would need the consent of the people before it could impose the tax suggested in the millage.

Ultimately, Locke and Rousseau would have agreed on the democratic principles involved in deciding on a public issue like the Washtenaw County millage proposal.  Yet, because a survey was released indicating a majority of Washtenaw county residents would have favored increased funding for local school districts, Locke and Rousseau would have disagreed on the outcome of the vote, with Locke supporting the millage rejection if residents felt it would infringe on their property rights.   Moreover, Rousseau would have argued the government could have acted in opposition to the vote and implemented the property tax because it was the general will to have increased funding for education.  Although we will never know exactly what each philosopher would argue, especially with the structure of Washtenaw County’s society being vastly different than any society they may have imagined, I still find it interesting to try and deduce what their reaction to an issue like this might be.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/county-voters-reject-school-millage

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2009/06/survey_shows_majority_of_washt.html

Modern Political Thought: readings from machiavelli to Nietzsche/ edited, with introductions, by David Wootton.-2^nd ed.

When comparing John Locke to other philosophers such as Hobbes, one sees that throughout his writing of the Second Treatise of Government, Locke gives important status to women. Locke establishes the status through the arguments that women are not property, women still retain power over children in the absence of the father, women are capable of leaving the compact of marriage and finally that women are to be honored and respected by children. Although Locke has feminist leanings, he falls short of feminist ideals by limiting each of these female rights.

In order to understand why the honoring of mothers by children in the most significant one, must first address the three other privileges Locke has allowed women. The first right was that of not addressing women as property. When describing how property is to be obtained Locke establishes on page 293 that it is through labor of the land which removes it from the common state it was in that creates the property rights. Women are never connected to property which helps to establish the creation of the woman as her own person within the commonwealth. By distinguishing that she is not property Locke creates a significant role for women within society showing that they can be the shareholders of property on the condition that they labor the land, thereby giving women power. However, this argument falls short of feminist ideals in that it has a very limited scope of power. Women are only said to not be property, however, they are not established as formal equals to men. At times Locke even makes the assumption that women and children are not responsible for the actions of men within war, which creates a barrier between men and women showing that women cannot enter into the state of war with others. Therefore, even though Locke establishes women as separate entities when considering property, he does not address their rights to be distinctly equal to those of males thereby limiting their power.

The second privilege was one in which the control of the mother over the raising of children remained even in times when the father was not present. (Locke 305) This argument is very important in that it establishes the right of mothers to raise their children. However Locke only addresses this right through the lens of what occurs within the household when a father is missing. The reader is therefore put under the assumption that if the father is present in the household, it is the father’s will which is addressed first, and the will of the mother takes a back seat. By only giving women power in the absence of the male, the women’s scope of influence over the child is put into the question in a regular family setting where extenuating circumstances do not deprive the family of the father.

The third privilege granted to women by Locke is their ability to leave the marriage compact by choice. (Locke 82) This establishes the woman’s rights as a wife to cut her reliance on her husband. Although this is a very progressive idea it is highly limited when considered in the context of the times. Locke gives this right with the knowledge that women whether or not they are told they can leave the compact of marriage would find it extremely difficult to do so considering the fact that they hold no means by which to support themselves, were they to be on their own. Property is passed down through the father (Locke 305) thereby making it almost impossible for a woman to come into the possession of land.

Finally, in Locke’s fourth argument, he establishes the need for mothers as well as fathers to be honored and respected by their children after the child has become a member of the commonwealth (Locke 304). Not only does Locke give women a position of importance by insisting that children respect their mothers but Locke does so without the limitation of men. The fact that children are honoring or respecting their fathers does not limit or demean the honor which they hold towards their mother. The children are indebted to both parents separately. This argument avoids many of the limitations which we have seen in the previous three arguments presented by Locke, however the idea of honor and respect is one of emotional importance, and though it give women a sense of pride and fulfillment, it provides no tangible advance within society, presenting a limitation to this argument as well.

As a result of the limitations which are present in every privilege Locke allows women, he can hardly be thought of as a feminist. However, Locke’s arguments can be seen as progressive steps with feminist leanings which helped to address more women’s rights than other philosophers addressed throughout this course, and that his call for women to be honored and respected provides the least limitations thereby making it the most significant right amongst those he allowed.

Aquí os presento algo más sobre los ‘menos protagonistas’, con vídeos suyos en sus respectivos nombres.

CHRISTIAN SHEPHARD: Padre de Jack. Viajaba muerto dentro de un ataúd en el Oceanic 815 y cuando el avión se estrelló en la isla su cadaver desapareció. Sin embargo, su fantasma ya ha hablado con varios protagonistas adquiriendo un papel cada vez mayor en la trama de la serie. También es padre de Claire, aunque de diferente mujer, y ella nunca lo conoció como tal.

CLAIRE LITTLETON: Hermanastra de Jack sin saberlo. Viajaba en el Oceanic embarazada de Aaron, al que dio a luz en la isla y forma, junto a Charlie, una de las parejas más entrañables de la serie, que se rompe con la muerte del último. Fue raptada por ‘Los Otros’ y perseguida por Rousseau. A día de hoy se desconoce su paradero, aunque sabemos que se encuentra con Christian y eso da seguridad.

CHARLIE PACE: Miembro de ‘Drive shafts’, una banda de rock en decadencia. Llega a la isla siendo un drogadicto y Locke le ayuda a dejar las drogas. Se enamora de Claire y forman una ‘familia’ con Aaron. Protagonista principal en las primeras temporadas que, junto a Hugo, son ‘la sonrisa’ del espectador. Muere por amor y amistad. Un ejemplo a seguir.

AARON LITTLETON: Hijo de Claire al que Charlie apadrina como un hijo. De los únicos que nació en la isla. Actualmente está en tierra firme pues Kate, que fue como una madre adoptiva para él durante un tiempo, lo dejó allí cuando volvió de la isla.

HUGO ‘HURLEY’ REYES: Mantiene el ‘buen rollo’ entre los supervivientes del Oceanic 815; es el personaje cómico de la serie. Ganó la lotería con unos ‘números malditos’ (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) que se repetirán a lo largo de las temporadas, lo que da un suspense bastante interesante. Estuvo internado en varias ocasiones en manicomios por tener visiones de gente que ha muerto y es perseguido por la policía por los secretos que guardaron al abandonar la isla. Actualmente se encuentra en la isla y, aunque durante poco tiempo, trabajó en la Iniciativa Dharma.

MICHAEL DAWSON: Superviviente del Oceanic que llega a la isla con su hijo Walt, al que apenas conoce por haber estado éste con su madre. Construye una balsa para sacar a Walt de la isla y Los Otros se lo roban. Para recuperarlo, se convierte en un traidor al asesinar a dos compañeros para salvar a Ben, líder de Los Otros. Regresa a su casa y, tras intentar suicidarse en varias ocasiones, vuelve a la isla “para morir” ayudando a los supervivientes en un barco que manda Charles Widmore.

WALT DAWSON: Hijo de Michael. Llega a la isla e intima mucho con Locke, algo que no gusta a su padre. Siempre inseparable de su perro Vincent, los flashbacks demuestran que tiene poderes antinaturales. Sabe que su padre asesinó a dos supervivientes y por eso deja de hablarle. En estos momentos se encuentra fuera de la isla, aunque en un capítulo se le aparece a Locke para darle fuerzas a continuar con su trabajo.

SAYID JARRAH: Torturador que trabajó en la milicia iraquí y llega a la isla siendo un experto con los aparatos electrónicos. Al salir de la isla acaba trabajando para Ben como sicario tras enterrar a la mujer de sus sueños por culpa de los enemigos de éste, los hombres de Charles Widmore. Otro que ha dado, está dando y dará mucho juego a la serie.

JIN SOO KWON: Pescador coreano, esposo de Sun y sicario del padre de ésta. En un principio no sabe hablar inglés lo que le da problemas con los supervivientes del 815 pero acaba aprendiendo a la perfección. Parece que muere en el barco que los va a salvar pero finalmente acaba viajando en el tiempo con Sawyer y los otros donde conoce a Rousseau de joven. Ahora está trabajando en la Iniciativa Dharma.

SUN HWA KWON: Mujer de Jin e hija de un empresario coreano multimillonario, que no acepta su relación hasta que Jin trabaja como sicario para él. Al principio es reprimida en la isla por su marido pero poco a poco las cosas se calman, aunque en los flashbacks veamos que lo ha engañado con otro hombre. Se queda embarazada en la isla pero da a luz en Corea, cuando es una de ‘Los Oceanic Six’ que habían salido. Está enfrentada con Ben por pensar que había matado a su marido y cuando éste le dice que no está muerto, ella vuelve a la isla.

DESMOND HUME: Llega a la isla antes que los supervivientes y se pasa tres años de su vida pulsando un botón para ‘salvar el mundo’. Es la pareja de Penny, hija de Widmore, quién cree que no se merece a su única descendiente aunque la relación entre ambos sea envidiable -sobre todo por esa preciosa conversación que tienen tras tres años sin verse-. Antes de que Charlie muera, tiene una compenetración especial con éste al salvarle la vida en varias ocasiones por visualizar el futuro. Otro que tiene mucho que dar a la serie.

PENNY WIDMORE: Hija de Charles, hermanastra de Faraday y pareja de Desmond, lo que la convierte también en un personaje importante. Enfrentada con su padre, busca a ‘Des’ alrededor del mundo durante tres años hasta hallarlo vivo y rescatarlo, junto a otros supervivientes, en un barco que iba en su búsqueda. Éste es el momento cuándo Penny y Desmond se conocen por primera vez.

DANIELLE ROUSSEAU: Superviviente francesa de otro naufragio anterior al Oceanic, el de ‘La Roca Negra’. Estuvo durante 16 años viviendo en la isla escapando de ‘Los Otros’, quienes le robaron a su hija Alex, y evitando cruzárselos en su camino. Deja un mensaje en la torre de radio que se repetirá todos esos años y por ello los supervivientes descubren su existencia. Intenta llevarse a Aaron de las manos de Claire. La conocimos de joven cuando su barco llegó a la isla. Los hombres de Widmore acaban asesinándola cuando intentaba proteger a su hija y al novio de ésta.

ALEX ¿LINUS? ROUSSEAU: Hija de Rousseau y robada por Ben, a quién ella conoce como padre. Un lío, vamos. Vivió toda su vida en la isla con ‘Los Otros’ hasta que conoce a su madre y a los supervivientes del Oceanic 815. La acaban matando en los ojos de su padrastro Ben, que la deja morir. Aquí lo vemos.

JULIET BURKE: Médica especializada en reproducción, es reclutada por Richard para conseguir hacer nacer a niños en la isla, que hasta ese momento es imposible por un error electromagnético que ya explicaré más adelante. Se convierte en una de ‘Los Otros’ durante tres años hasta que se escapa con los supervivientes por medio de Jack, con el que parece que va a iniciar una relación. Finalmente, y tras quedarse en la isla mientras Jack y los demás se van, se convierte en la pareja de Sawyer en 1977 cuando están con la Iniciativa Dharma y acaban viviendo juntos. Con la vuelta de Kate, peligra su relación.

RICHARD ALPERT: Interesante y muy importante personaje que conocemos en diferentes épocas y siempre está con el mismo aspecto físico, es decir, nunca envejece. Es uno ‘Los Otros’ y, aunque nunca ejerce como líder, siempre es un fiel consejero de todos ellos para comunicarse con Jacob y también para traer a gente que ellos necesitan a la isla, como Juliet. Le salva la vida a Ben y está en muchos momentos con John Locke.

DANIEL FARADAY: Físico y profesor que se lanzó a la isla en paracaídas (a los primeros que encontró fue a Jack y a Kate: de ahí la famosa frase entre los Losties de ‘Are you Jack’?) desde un helicóptero que venía del barco de Widmore. Era hijo de Eloise y de Charles Widmore, pero de éste sólo lo supimos al final, por lo que es hermanastro de Penny. Es uno de los protagonistas y es muy entrañable por su actitud distraída, sus buenas maneras y su interés científico por las misteriosas propiedades de la Isla. Se pasó toda su vida adulta estudiando el espacio-tiempo y su constante es Desmond porque se le apareció del futuro. Era muy cariñoso con su amiga Charlotte, de la que estaba enamorada y la vió morir en sus manos por los continuos flashes y viajes en el tiempo.Cuando acude armado al campamento de ‘Los Otros’ para buscar a su madre en 1977, ésta lo mata sin saber que era su hijo.

Y no me olvido de estos que están o han estado y que han tenido importancia, pero por unas razones u otras no los debo meter en este ‘Quién es quién’:

- Mr. Ecko
- Libby y Ana Lucía
- Rose y Bernard
- Boone y Shanon
- Nikki y Paulo
- Vincent
- Ethan, Tom, Goodwin y Mikhail
- Horace, Mr. Chang, Radzinsky
- Charlotte, Naomi, Lapidus, Minkowski, Keamy

It’s raining dollars!  What would Frederic Bastiat have to say about this if he could speak to us from 1848?

As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness – Judge Robert Bork

Frederic Bastiat

NEWS FLASH!

We interrupt our regular programming.  The President bans windows in order to benefit candle makers; candle production, he says, will stimulate the economy as long as candles aren’t melted by sunlight.  The administration also announces it will nationalize candle manufacturing, allow greedy wax suppliers only 10% of the money they are owed by the candle makers, plus grant a 30% share of Acme Candles, Inc.  to the UCMDWU (United Candle Mold Delivery Workers’ Union).   New York Times White House correspondent asks Press Secretary Roberty Gibbs what enchanted moment inspired this economic epiphany.

OK, I’ve got the facetiousness out of my system.  I wish I could take credit for this prescient concept.  I’ll admit to only my personal sarcasm in tying the philosophy of that remarkably witty proponent of freedom and liberty: Frederic Bastiat, (see link to Wikipedia entries from the pictures on the sidebar) to our current state of affairs.  Frederic Bastiat was a member of what was known as the French Liberal School in the 1840s (liberal as in the classical/original free market definition), warning of the folly of government intervention in the marketplace.  His parable of a fictitious petition by candle makers to the French government to eliminate windows in order to prevent candles from melting – thereby increasing economic prosperity by insuring the success of the candle industry (at the expense of the window industry…oops) – is a hilarious anecdote.  It also unfortunately illustrates the genesis of the president’s belief system.

Obviously above, I make reference to the bailout of GM, the perversion of the rule of law in throwing Chrysler bond holders to the wolves, and the artificial propping up of the UAW rather than normal bankruptcy pecking order.  Bastiat’s fable of altruistic but ultimately damaging marketplace intervention, is echoed consistently by the current administration’s adherence to this paradigm of unlimited spending by fiat justified by its immediate/short term effects on various and sundry interest groups.  In fact, Friedrich Hayek (see my previous two posts) said in a review of Bastiat that, according to 1930s economist John Maynard Keynes, the assumption of a multiplier effect (simply meaning a belief that the government can stimulate the economy by spending, producing a return greater than the cost of the stimulus; thereby increasing employment) on general economic prosperity would precisely mimic the argument of the candle makers!

Cash for clunkers (and maybe the upcoming Stimulus II cash for “cluckers” chicken farm bailout?) would most certainly fit neatly into these fallacies: money will do more good in the hands of the government, and it is the duty of government  to see that all get what they “deserve”.

Lastly, Frederic Bastiat’s landmark book: The Law has remarkable parallels to the economically damaging entitlement philosophies of the current congressional majority.  For example Bastiat says in the section The Results of Legal Plunder, “No society can exist unless the laws are respectable to a certain degree.  The safest ways to make laws respected is to make them respectable.”  This quote illustrates the current congress’s path towards a society in which greater than 50% of workers pay no taxes, and receive payments in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit.  Therefore, this non-tax paying majority – the receivers of public services and governmental largess – are able to award themselves through the ballot ever increasing free goods and services from the minority: the tax payers/suppliers of public services and governmental largess.  I see no end to this increase in receivers, to include the resulting unconstructive inertia towards manufactured dependence.

So to bring my polemic to a close, I quote Bastiat one more time: “Legal plunder is identified as “… the law takes from some persons [what] belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong…The person who profits from this law… will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry…”

— Or nationality, ethnicity, income demographic, religion, color, blue collar, white collar, government employee, Woodstock museum, first time home buyer, union member, sexual preference, illegal immigrant, home in foreclosure, Wall St., Main St., small business, large business, self esteem damaging tatoo removers (I didn’t make this one up: see   http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/63697.html), “green” energy producer, municipality, farmer, auto parts supplier, environmentalist, “too big to fail” bank and insurance companies, student, teacher, cop, mechanic, ethanol producer, the bicycle spoke hooker-uppers’ guild, donut shop owners’ amalgamated, and last but not least……….Acme Candles, Inc.

Comments on the blog con or pro most welcome.

“Peter Brown for Mayor now that’s flaky”- Annise Parker, Peter Brown endorsing Anniseparker now that’s flaky http://bit.ly/4CpP4u

John Locke is a social contract theorist. He believes that people have ultimate power over the government and a right to revolt under certain circumstances. After reading an article about a suicide bombing in Pakistan, I began to contemplate whether Locke’s views would have been changed if massive explosives were around when he wrote. Through technological advances and mass communication, does Locke’s social contract theory need to be advanced according to today’s standards?  Today’s weapons can be so deadly that we no longer need a majority to revolt, one dissenter could destroy the heart of a government in a social contract. Locke’s social contract could easily be threatened by the simplicity of revolt through today’s technology, however the United States has proved to us that we are able to live under a social contract in today’s world.

John Locke theorized during the 17^th century, where simple guns were some of the most highly advanced weapons of the time. Today society has nuclear bombs, explosives that could kill millions. And even scarier is that we have more means of communication and easier transportation, which are ways to simplify attacks. With the simplicity of harming a mass amount of people, it could be argued that we would never escape a state of nature. Any person who opposes the governing rule will no longer have to follow the masses, for they can kill the masses quite easily. During John Locke’s time he wrote that there must be a majority harmed to revolt “For if it reach no farther than some private men’s cases , though they have a right to defend themselves, … the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest, wherein they are sure to perish;” (Locke 343).  At that time one person against a government would likely perish. Today however, one person could potentially take out at least the heart of a government. There are recipes to create bombs accessible to anybody who wants them, so even one opposition can create a major threat to the civil society. With this accessibility, it is no longer necessary to follow Locke’s guidelines to rebel, and even if it is morally right, it only takes one person to dissent.

An example relative to Locke would be when Locke was forced to flee to Amsterdam. When Charles II took power over England, he was pro-catholic and opposed Locke’s protestant beliefs. Eventually the people had the “Glorious Revolution” and William and Mary took the throne and all was well for Locke. At that time it took an entire society to band together and revolt against Charles II. Today, if there was a protestant who was being oppressed by his Catholic ruler, he could in theory attempt to take down the ruler himself through one of today’s highly dangerous weapons (and while there is a lot of security, people can still devise plans and attempt to get around it). So, today it would only take one citizen to oppose the governing rule for the social contract to be in threat.

Regardless of the accessibility to weapons, we still have a government in America that is ruled by the people, and we have been under a social contract with it for hundreds of years. If a social contract was impossible with today’s weapons, our nation would not exist today, and we would be in a constant state of nature. While these weapons are a great fear of many people, we have thus far successfully existed by having a strong government. In addition, our government is not ruled by one person alone, so there are always people to assume roles that need replacing if there is an incident. The United States most likely has been successful for a few reasons. First off, we have the secret service, FBI, and CIA. These are all organizations designed specifically to protect our government and our nation. Secondly, we have had presidents assassinated before, and we have been and are prepared with the vice president and so on. It would be very difficult to attempt to take out all of the important people in our government (president, vice president, cabinet, congress, etc.) because we have so many.  It is also important to note that we have had peaceful transitions of power in our many positions. With a strict guideline on how our government should be run, it makes it easy to avoid violence when a change in office occurs.  Finally, our government’s technology and knowledge is so advanced that they are able to detect possible threats early on. While weapons of mass destruction are still a major threat to the security of the United States government, we have certain tools to avoid that threat at all costs.

Whether or not Locke would have devised his theory based off of new technologies is impossible to know. However, it is safe to say that the United States have thus far survived in a social contract, even with these massive threats. Therefore, while the weapons cause a new obstacle in Locke’s theory, his theory is still arguably plausible in today’s society.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/02/pakistan.explosion/index.html

In response to the Michigan state government’s perpetual budget crisis, several dramatic changes have been proposed, one of which involves converting the Michigan legislature from full-time to part-time. According to some advocates, not only would the state save money on legislators’ salaries, but the shift would also lessen the amount of frivolous legislation and wasteful government spending that is often approved by the state congress (“Parttime”). Supporters of this policy have pointed to Texas, a state which uses a part-time legislature despite having to deal with a large, widespread population. Unlike Michigan, Texas has actually reported budget surpluses in recent years (“Texas Budget Surplus”). Whether or not Texas’s budget surplus has anything to do with its legislative system, I find the concept particularly intriguing, especially after noticing that John Locke himself seems to advocate the use of a part-time legislature.

In Chapter XII of his Second Treatise, Locke writes, “It is not necessary, no, nor so much as convenient, that the legislative should be always in being… because there is not always need of new laws to be made” (Wootton 328). On this point, it is quite evident that Locke would strongly disapprove of Michigan’s current full-time legislature. Locke further elaborates on the subject, saying “Constant frequent meetings of the legislature, and long continuations of their assemblies, without necessary occasion, could not but be burdensome to the people, and must necessarily in time produce… dangerous inconveniences” (Wootton 329). Although Locke does not specifically describe what a “dangerous inconvenience” is, Michigan’s budget crisis certainly comes to mind. So then how should a legislature properly regulate its sessions? Locke answers this question by describing two ways in which a part-time legislature can be conducted.

The first option is to have a constitution which “requires [the legislature’s] assembling and acting at certain intervals” (Wootton 328). These intervals should obviously be designed in such a way that they do not leave any room for the development of a full-time legislature. This is essentially the system used in Texas, where the state legislature meets for about 140 days every two years, as instructed by the state constitution (“The Texas Constitution,” Article 3, Section 5; Article 3, Section 24).

The second option (the one which Locke seems to favor) involves a prudent executive who calls for the assembly of the legislature whenever it happens to be needed while acting with the people’s best interest in mind (Wootton 328-29). This concept may be somewhat foreign to those living in the U.S., but for Locke, who lived in 17^th century Great Britain, it was not. Historically, the British crown played a crucial role in legislative assembly (“Short Parliament”). Therefore it seems likely that Locke’s “prudent executive” is an allusion to some sort of an idealized version of the traditional British method of legislative assembly. However, this system would probably seem far too anti-democratic for the average American. Thus, it would be impossible to actually implement anywhere within the United States.

Consequently, the state of Michigan could only consider the first option if it were to make use of a truly Lockean part-time legislature. An argument against a part-time legislature might be that legislatures with larger constituencies simply cannot carry out all their necessary duties without working full-time. This is probably why most states with large populations have made the decision to use full-time legislatures (“Full and Part-time”). However, as I mentioned before, Texas does not seem to have much of a problem using a part-time legislature, even though it is the second most populous state in the union.

Unfortunately, there may just be too many variables involved for one to be able to determine which states should or should not have part-time legislatures. What works for Texas might be disastrous for Michigan. However, given that the state’s overall situation seems to be getting worse by the day, what would Michigan really have to lose if it were to give a more Lockean method a try?

Works Cited

“Full- and Part-Time Legislatures.” NCSL Home. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16701>.

“Parttimemichigan – Part-Time Legislature in the News.” Parttimemichigan – Is Michigan Ready for a Part-Time Legislature? var sc_project=2441915; var. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. <http://parttimemichigan.googlepages.com/floridadoesit…>.

“Short Parliament (British history) — Britannica Online Encyclopedia.” Encyclopedia – Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 09 Nov. 2009. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/541676/Short-Parliament>.

“Texas Budget Surplus Makes Legislators Look Good | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth.” Dallas-Fort Worth – Local News, Weather, Traffic, Entertainment, Events, Breaking News | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth. Web. 02 Nov. 2009. <http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Texas-Budget-Surplus-Makes-Legislators-Look-Good.html>.

Texas Constitution and Statutes – Home. Web. 09 Nov. 2009. <http://www.constitution.legis.state.tx.us/>.

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. Print.

The state of human nature has been a heavily hypothesized topic of political thought throughout history. Philosophers from a multitude of historical time periods have spent a great deal of effort attempting to define the truths of human nature. It can be argued that the opinions of various influential political thinkers, including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, present a binding ideological commonality that humanity has an innate tendency to act on selfish motives. However, I do not believe it is possible to develop a stagnant definition of the reality of human nature. The tendencies of mankind, I believe, are prone to continuous change and therefore capable of being catalyzed by more than a single natural force. Through the analysis of the social evolution of mankind, tied together with the dissection of various social ideologies offered by prominent political thinkers, I will present an argument in defense of the idea that the nature of social theory, a key element of political thought, is one of infinite change rather than finite universalities.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both present social theories centered on the unchanging belief that man is selfish. Hobbes, in his work titled Leviathan, states “the object of man’s desire, is not to enjoy only once, and for one instant of time, but to assure for ever, the way of his future desire,” (Wootton, 149). This statement reveals the idea that human action is driven by a selfish tendency to always act in ways deemed as beneficial to the preservation of oneself. Locke, although he argues that man possesses the natural abilities of reason and tolerance, insists “self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends,” (Wootton, 289). This means Locke also believes selfishness to be a universal and unavoidable characteristic of mankind. These two men, writing during periods of intense violence spurred by a revolutionary mood in the history of England, felt man was capable of action based only on selfish motives. The divided nation of England presented a world that was easily viewed as one in which acting selfishly was the only appropriate way to achieve self-preservation.

Although Hobbes and Locke present a universal and unchanging definition of human nature as they define their own social theories, modern philosopher Rebecca Solnit argues, through her observations of various human reactions to disasters, that humans are capable of acting selflessly. She claims that the phenomenon of “surprising human kindness and good sense” occurs time and time again when disaster strikes (Solnit, 33). The observations that persuade her to defend this idea are mainly of disasters that have occurred in time periods and places where a social structure has been firmly established. Her argument illuminates the potential reality that modern humanity, upon descending into a state of nature, subconsciously finds it beneficial to its own preservation to work together and assure that old social structures will be erected once again.

How is it that Rebecca Solnit is able to present factual observations that can be seen as contrary to the social theories of Hobbes and Locke? I believe the answer to this question lies within the idea that social theory is organic. External forces, which occur randomly over the course of history, stimulate substantial human reaction. This can be seen in both the violent reactions of Englishmen during the English Civil War and the responses of modern humanity to the challenges presented by disasters. These human reactions to external forces, I would argue, cannot be defined by one common catalyst. That is, I believe humans will act according to the unique situation in which they find themselves. The people of England acted selfishly throughout the 17^th century because it was in their best interest to preserve themselves through the use of violence. However, the populations analyzed by Solnit found it more beneficial to act in a selfless manner in order to preserve their lives through maintaining a social structure. I would argue that this is because a substantial portion of modern humanity is not fully capable of prolonged sustainability without receiving help from an established society.

In conclusion, I would defend the social theories of all the philosophers discussed above on the basis that humans acted, during specific and unique time periods, according to the theories presented. However, I would disagree with all of these thinkers on the basis that they present their social theories as finite definitions of human nature. I believe it can be argued that human nature is based on responding to external forces. Therefore, given both a specific time period and the reality that new external forces are always arising, human nature is constantly evolving. This means that social theory, because it is the study of human nature, is also infinitely changing.

Why is this important to the topic of Political Science? Political philosophers have consistently used social theory as a base from which they establish further political assertions. Therefore, presenting an understanding of human nature is an essential piece of the creation of a political theory. As argued above, human nature, and by association social theory, is constantly changing. This means that political theory is also an open-ended science. For example, the development of Communism, I would argue, would not have been possible without the occurrence of both the Industrial Revolution and the worldwide movement to embrace a Capitalist social and economic structure. In other words, Communism, as a political theory, was created as an answer to a newly arisen state of human nature created by a human response to external change. Therefore, human nature, because it is constantly evolving as it responds to new external forces, allows for the infinite construction of new political theories.

Works Cited:

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought – Readings from Machiavelli

to Nietzsche. Second Edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing

Company, Inc., 2008. Print.

Solnit, Rebecca. The Uses of Disaster – Notes on Bad Weather and Good

Government (Essay)

-Rachel Emery section 13

The Constitution and it’s application is a lot different now than when it was ratified. A recently-published book called Our Undemocratic Constitution by Sanford Levinson even calls for a constitutional convention to write a new one. Imagine that tomorrow Americans decided that our government wasn’t protecting our natural rights, had gotten so out of hand we needed a new government.

How would a constitutional convention go today? I shudder at the thought. Imagine: 300 million Americans all wanting a finger in the pie, not to mention people as they are grouped into organizations, corporations, and interest groups, which take on lives of their own. Locke distinguishes between dissolution of society and dissolution of government (Wootton 343). The idea is that you can build a new roof without tearing the whole house down. So, our social structure would stand, even without government, and all parts would be trying to protect their own interests, throwing around economic weight to extract political power. Take a moment to picture—something repugnant like “Article II: McDonald’s is above the law.”

Maybe a democratic constitutional convention could be organized through the web. If it could be made secure, thousands of blogs could be started for localities, with people voting on the best ideas, each ‘best one’ sifting up to a more national level. While there is a possibility of too much democracy in creating government, “too many cooks in the kitchen,” I don’t imagine our culture would accept any less-democratic method. Would you stand for a group of men meeting in secret in some room in Philly to create the government you would live under? For most, it’s not an acceptable option. We as a society tend to grant the founders a profound respect that verges on deification, but if we had to, who would we choose to fill that role today?

Assuming we could formulate a new constitution, in ratifying it who would get a vote? Only the people? Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a case on the Supreme Court’s docket this year, and the decision might end up giving corporations the right to free speech. The right to revolution isn’t dead, but globalization, the linking of the world through the internet, and the power of corporations certainly make it difficult to exercise.

Locke also points out that there is “slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions,” because “people are not so easily got out of their old forms as some are apt to suggest” (Wooton 347). Governments are not overthrown for “light and transient causes,” as our Declaration says, and only a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, [evincing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” convinces them to create a new one.

Are we, for all our democratic bravado, in reality living under Hobbes’ Leviathan, where any pilot is better than none at an altitude 30,000 feet? On the other hand, perhaps at this point “in the course of human events,” it’s just hard to imagine a political situation dire enough to outweigh the risks of creating a new government. Right now we are content with the little revolutions that we have every few years, called “elections.”

Sources:

John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government in:

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. 2nd. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2008. 343-347. Print.

At my current residence, my landlord issued a warning that he would fine $20 to every apartment in our complex for cleaning up cigarette butts on the sidewalk in front of the entrance to my apartment complex. Cigarette butts are a common thing to find on any sidewalk in a city, but I can understand a landlord wishing to keep its property litter-free. Yet, the problem I have with this possible fine is I do not smoke; therefore, I have nothing to do with cigarette butts being discarded onto the sidewalk. So there are two possible actions I can take if this fine is imposed: I could take the Hobbesian route and pay the fine because it is unjust to go against the sovereign (in this case, the landlord) or I could take Locke’s advice by opposing the sovereign and an unjust statute.

According to Hobbes, he would say I would have to pay this clean-up fine, regardless of how responsible I am for it. In my situation, I have entered a social contract with my landlord in the form of a residential lease. The only section of my lease that remotely justifies the clean-up fine is, “Tenants also shall maintain the Premises in a neat and orderly manner.” So even if my lease does not say that my landlord has a right to fine me, he is still in the right according to Hobbes because it was I who signed a contract putting the landlord into a position of power, “there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign,” (Hobbes 176). Hobbes is saying that the sovereign is unable to break a contract because only the people who placed the sovereign into power are in a position to break a contract.  In addition, Hobbes would say that I would have no right to object from paying the $20 because, “being thereby bound by covenant, to own the actions, and judgments of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant, amongst themselves,” (Hobbes 175-176). This means that it would be unjust for me to approach the landlord and claim myself to be exempt from the fine no matter how innocent I am. In a Hobbesian setting, the only solution would to be to keep my original covenant and pay the fine.

On the other hand, Locke claims that I should not pay the clean-up fine. By Locke’s terms, the landlord in my situation is using arbitrary power, or governing without settled laws (Locke 323) because there is no writing in my lease that claims that the landlord has a right to charge every apartment a fine for the clean-up of a public space. As Locke claims, “the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions,” (Locke 324). Consequently, my landlord is no position to charge me $20 because the landlord should only take actions outlined in our contract. In addition, Locke would also suggest that it would be right for me to stand up against the landlord and to not pay the $20. Locke says that people have a right to rebel if an authority changes the laws, and the people have a right to rebel, “when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion,” (Locke 347). Not only is it my right to rebel the fine, but Locke is saying that it is fault of the landlord for me to rebel in the first place by creating this fine.

Both Hobbes and Locke both have several convincing points in their arguments that could dictate my action if this $20 fine of cleaning up cigarette butts is charged upon me. Which side would I choose in this situation? Locke’s side would be an easy choice because not only would it keep me $20 richer, but mostly because the power to fine for cleaning public space is not outlined in our contract. Yet, Hobbes does make a point that I agreed to put the landlord in a position of power over me. Regardless, this situation shows how the different ideals of Locke and Hobbes can be implemented at many levels of modern society.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Ed. David Wooton. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. 116-277.

Locke, John. “Second Treatise of Government.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Ed. David Wooton. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008. 285-353.