Sago Boulevard

Here’s an IQ test that’s supposedly given to some job applicants in Japan.

The rules:

Only 2 persons on the raft at a time;

The father can not stay with any of the daughters without their mother’s presence;

The mother can not stay with any of the sons without their father’s presence;

The thief (striped shirt) can not stay with any family member if The Policeman is not there;

Only the Father, the Mother and the Policeman know how to operate the raft;

To start click on the big blue circle on the right.

To move the people click on them.

To move the raft click on the pole on the opposite side of the river.

Thanks to my brother Scott for the link.

Scientists conclude: Egg came first. Evolutionary genetics specialist, John Brookfield explains:

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

“Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg,” he added. “So, I would conclude that the egg came first.”

(via Clayton)

NYTimes reports:

SAN FRANCISCO, May 26 — A California appeals court ruled Friday that online reporters are protected by the same confidentiality laws that protect traditional journalists…
…
In its ruling, the appeals court said online and offline journalists are equally protected under the First Amendment. “We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish ‘legitimate’ from ‘illegitimate’ news,” the opinion states. “Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.”

The ruling states that Web sites are covered by California’s shield law protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

The ruling strikes me as correct despite the slippery slope. Yes, not all bloggers qualify as journalists but enough do to justify using the First Amendment to protect them. (via Bitch PhD)

In response to David Klinghoffer’s call for Mexican immigrants to assimilate, Charlie Hall correctly notes the double standard on display. Klinghoffer, who not only identifies as an Orthodox Jew but also tries to ground his argument in the biblical story of Ruth, would never suggest that religious Jews abandon their traditional customs in order to be good Americans. I would go further and say that Klinghoffer’s comparison of the current immigration dilemna with the religious conversion of Ruth stems from a deep misunderstanding of both citizenship and religious identity.
(more…)

Fellow Yankee fans, I’m taking a poll. What’s the best Yankee team in history? I’ve listed the five teams that I think are contenders but feel free to disagree. There’s certainly no shortage of great Yankee teams to choose from.

1927 (Ruth hits 60 homers; Gehrig is AL MVP)
1956 (Mantle hits triple crown)
1936 (Gehrig hits triple crown; DiMaggio’s rookie year)
1961 (Maris hits 61 homers; Ford wins Cy Young)
1998 (114-48 record)

I’m torn between the ‘27 and ‘61 teams. What do you think?

R. Soloveitchik in Halakhic Man (pp. 108-109):

If a man wishes to attain the rank of holiness, he must become a creator of worlds. If a man never creates, never brings into being anything new, anything original, then he cannot be holy unto his God. That passive type who is derelict in fulfilling his task of creation cannot become holy. Creation is the lowering of transcendence into the midst of our turbid, coarse, material world; and this lowering can take place only through the implementation of the ideal Halakhah in the core of reality (the realization of Halakhah=contraction=holiness=creation).

Gary Becker has an excellent post on American immigration policy. It’s refreshing to see a discussion on immigration that doesn’t focus exclusively on illegal immigration. Becker correctly notes that the United States should increase the number of legal immigrants accepted and that employers who exploit illegals should bear the brunt of the punishment, not the immigrants who, for the most part, came here to feed their families. America is a nation of immigrants and our policy ought to reflect that.
(more…)

Pascal in Pensees #425 (via Jeremy):

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.

The 30th Philosophers’ Carnival is up at anniemiz.

In an interview with AlterNet, atheist Sam Harris makes a point that’s worth addressing (via Piny).

[Y]ou have people talking about just wanting meaning in their lives, which I argue is a total non-sequitur when it comes down to justifying your belief in God.

If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you.

He’s right that he would sound like a lunatic but I think the analogy is off. There’s no reason to for me to believe in a giant diamond in my backyard and the kind of satisfaction one may draw from this kind of belief is superficial. No great mystery is solved by positing its existence.

Yet, most of us naturally recognize meaning and purpose as inherent in the world. We recognize that despite the disasters and tragedies we read about daily, the world is good and goodness is not something that can result from a string of random genetic mutations and mysterious explosions. As I’ve argued before, if morality is to have any force, it must be, in a deep sense, built-in to the fabric of the universe.

None of this requires a leap of faith or belief in the irrational. The basic claim of religion responds to a very powerful human intuition that goodness is not random. When a religious tradition provides a compelling explanation for the role of goodness in the world and our relationship with that goodness, the rational individual ought to take notice. Is it the only explanation? Of course not. But I think it’s the best one.

The Seattle Public Schools’ website lists and defines various kinds of racism (via VC). “Cultural racism” is defined as follows:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.

Up until the list of examples, the definition seems fairly reasonable: attributing normality to whites, devaluing non-whites, etc. The first example - “defining white skin tones as… flesh colored” - is also pretty straightforward. After that, I’m confused. First of all, what the heck is “a future time orientation”? Some of the commenters at VC say that it might refer to certain capitalistic attitutudes towards career-planning and higher education. I fail to see how that has anything to do with race, though. Planning well for the future seems like a plainly good thing to do. Is there any argument against this? Are there cultural or religious groups who ideologically oppose “future time orientation”?

As for individualism, it’s true that it refers to a mentality associated with America and Western Europe. Believing that everyone ought to follow the norms of your culture, first of all, isn’t racism; it’s cultural elitism. But in this context, “individualism” is far too vague. Can school emphasize the value of individual rights, individual freedoms, individual responsibility, individual choices? Without some very specific qualifiers, using individualism as an example of racism is a little ridiculous. (It might be ridiculous with the qualifiers too, depending on what they are.)

The issue of standard English is a little more complicated. The problem is that it’s pretty much unavoidable. How do you teach rules of grammar and syntax without assuming one standard English? If schools do in fact teach the English of the educated elite (which they do), it’s disingenuous to talk about the equal legitimacy of other dialects. Incidentally, the website is written in very clear standard English.

A handful of talented Jewish bloggers are collaborating to promote political debate in good faith. From its maiden post:

Our commitment is to maintain a quality level of analysis and an avoidance of the hit-and-run style of commentary that is the scourge of political blogs. People on the left and the right can agree on at least one thing—political discourse in this country is as polarized as ever. Therefore, we are also committed to maintaining an atmosphere of comity, both amongst each other and towards viewpoints with which we disagree. Hopefully this won’t take the fun out of arguing on the internet that we have all come to love.

Sounds good to me.

I’ve been under the weather for past few days and blogging generally takes a back seat to health (crazy, huh?). But I’m feeling a little better now and hopefully I’ll be back to my old self (and back online) in no time.

Ruchira Paul believes that George W. Bush claims direct personal communication with God. This, of course, cannot be tolerated because

Those who claim direct communication with other worldly forces for their earthly actions are either lying or deluding themselves. In both cases, it is dangerous to vest extraordinary powers in such unreliable hands.

Paul finds evidence for her claim in remarks Bush made “to a business group in Irvine, Ca.”:

“I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true,” he said. “One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.

“I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other.”

(more…)

From JPost:

Haviva Ner-David is an Orthodox feminist who has been a leader of some of the most prominent struggles in Jewish women’s lives. Just before Pessah, she received her PhD in Jewish studies from Bar-Ilan University. And then, on the eve of Pessah, Ner-David was ordained as a rabbi in Jerusalem.

Ner-David, who has journeyed through feminism, Judaism and social action for the betterment of the status of Jewish women, admits that she is still not completely aware of the tremendous significance of these two events.

She knows that some Orthodox Jews will not accept her ordination and will not acknowledge her religious and social status as a rabbi.

Yet this young and quiet resident of Baka and mother of five says she is neither hesitant nor frustrated: the dream she began to cherish some 12 years ago is coming true.

“I am not the same woman I was at the beginning of this 12-year journey,” she says reflectively. I have discovered a lot about myself and what it means to be a woman rabbi at the beginning of the 21st century.”

There is so much to say about this, I don’t know where to start. On one hand, there is clearly a need to publically recognize women who have achieved a certain level of learning. But there are also some halakhic obstacles that can’t be ignored. Not to the mention the non-halakhic but extremely important sociological implications. Read Hirhurim’s post on the issues and the heated debate in the comments. ADDeRabbi has two posts (here and here) on the subject as well.

To be honest, I’m a little hesistant to weigh in with my own opinion because I’m not familiar enough with the issues and I don’t know very much about Ner-David’s particular case. But the blogosphere has no place for humility! (I’m only half-kidding). Give me some time, though. The above-cited posts should keep you busy for a while.

Over Shabbat, I decided to reread R. Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man. I think it’s been two years or so since I last read it (aside from referencing passages now and then). While The Lonely Man of Faith may still have a special place in my heart, Halakhic Man is an absolutely mind-blowing account of how the religious personality uses the Halakhah as a lens through which to behold the world. In fact, these two seminal essays should probably be read in light of each other and I may explore that possibility in a later post. The essay’s stated aim

is to penetrate deep into the structure of halakhic man’s consciousness and to determine the precise nature of this “strange, singular” being who reveals himself to the world from within his narrow, constricted “four cubits” [Berakhot 8a], his hands soiled by the gritty realia of practical Halakhah [see Berakhot 4a].

Later in Part I, R. Soloveitchik introduces his protaganist more fully:

When halakhic man approaches reality, he comes with his Torah, given to him from Sinai, in hand. He orients himself to the world by means of fixed statutes and firm principles. An entire corpus of precepts and laws guides him along the path leading to existence. Halakhic man, well furnished with rules, judgments, and fundamental principles, draws near the world with an a priori relation. His approach begins with an ideal creation and concludes with a real one. To whom may he be compared. To a mathematician who fashions an ideal world and then uses it for the purpose of establishing a relationship between it and the real world…

Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to the Darfur rally on Sunday and I’m a little embarassed to admit that I only started following the situation there recently. The more I read about it, the sicker I feel. We really have no excuse not to raise our voices in protest.

This past week was a particularly appropriate time to show support for the victims of genocide as April 25th was Holocaust Memorial Day. I’m proud that Jewish groups were well-represented. Our national history demands that we not turn our backs while others are slaughtered. In his 1986 acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, Elie Wiesel said:

Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.

We need to pay attention to Darfur right now. We need to do what we wish others had done for the Jews of Europe.

The 29th Philosophers’ Carnival is up at Daylight Atheism, featuring my first ever philosophers-carnival post!