Stepping Up the Exposures

Over the past few weeks I've gotten more focused on exposing myself to potentially anxiety-inducing situations so as to learn to be less sociallyanxious. On ething that helped propel this was a card I received on Christmas Eve from my uncle Frank, who asked what I'd been doing with my life. I responded with a note telling of the progress I've made over the past few years, particularly noting my appearances at some open mikes and the hopes that this may lead to something that pays. Having written that, I then felt obliged to start getting more serious about it. So next day I busked for an hour in Suburban Station, after not having done so anywhere more than a few times and that at least a year before. I've busked several times in the days since, often before work, and mean to make it a regular habit. I'd already decided to forgo my usual New Year's Eve practice of attending the party at Lee and Diane Weinstein's for membersof the Philadelphia Science Fiction Society, in favor of going to a public party where there would be more new people I might meet. I went to McGillen's Old Ale House, where they were also doing karaoke. I sang "Imagine" -- having been reminded of how much I like it when it concluded the HumanLight event a couple weeks ago -- and the MC told me I'd done a good job. This feeling must have been shared by another partygoer who high-fived me as I was on my way out. High-fived by a total stranger! That ever happened before. But I'd earned it by having the courage to get in the spotlight like that, without even having any friends present. When I'd first thought I might like to do karaoke, visiting Sisters with other members of BiUnity nearly four years ago, I only tried singing along under my breath, being as yet to shy to do more. Now I sang under my breath only prior to my own performance, to save my voice, but sang out loud afterward, and with no self-consciousness to speak of.

Uploading My Art

The other day I decided to start trying to sell my art, most of which is mathematically inspired. I've just uploaded some of it to my flickr account. My user name there is stripeyseven, and you can find my work in the set called "My art."

Exchanging Languages

Relax! That doesn't mean I'm posting in Korean from now on. Not yet anyway. What it does mean is that I've started conversing with a Korean exchange student, with the object of learning each other's languages. Why am I doing this? you may ask. Well, a Penn undergrad I met at the ICSA conference in June, on hearing of my efforts to overcome social anxiety -- and especially my desire to get more comfortable in one-on-one interaction with people -- suggested I look for ads from people seeking English conversation. In the past month or two I've noticed a couple such ads on Penn's campus (where I use the library's computers for Net access) and responded to them. The first person had already found a conversation partner, but the second was still looking. After exchanging emails I got a call from her yesterday, and met her (with her sister) this evening. I'll be seeing her again Friday. I got that call while receiving a ride home from a HumanLight celebration in Horsham, hosted by the Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia and sponsored by PhillyCOR, the Philadelphia Coalition of Reason. HumanLight is a humanist winter holiday officially observed on 23 December. The celebration featured food and drink,a speech or two, a storyteller, live music, and the gathering of all the volunteers for a group picture. The ceremonial part involved the lighting of three candles representing reason, hope, and compassion. The mother candle was red while the daughters were green, yellow, and blue, but I don't know whether these colors symbolized anything. The ceremonies opened with singing a song specifically written for HumanLight, and closed with John Lennon's "Imagine." I get rather emotional from that song. Today, I was pleased to see that PhillyCOR has its own display on the mall by the National Visitors Center, set a little further back than the Hannukah menorah and the Nativity creche. PhillyCOR's display is a giant globe on a pedestal, "brought to you by your friendly neighborhood atheists, humanists, and freethinkers."

Logo

Early yesterday morning, a college professor told me and my classmates to write an essay (don't remember what about), and that we each should put not only our name on it, but also something that would distinguish our work from others'.

I was worried that I wouldn't know what to write, but before thinking about that I made up this logo, based on my initials.

Then I woke up.

Quote of the Month

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/6404-vote-first-ask-questions-later.html

"Is there reason to be happy that the insufferably religious George W. is soon to be history? 'I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.' That was said by someone named Barack Obama.[1] The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars. Let's pray for an end to this." -- William Blum

Help Keep Sex Worker Media Alive

The nation's premier magazine by and about sex workers, maintained by an all-volunteer staff, is in serious financial trouble. I'm going to help them in whatever ways I'm able and hope you will too. Here's a recent communication from outgoing editor-in-chief Rachel Aimee, including some special premium offers to loosen you generosity: 

Help Us Keep the Hustle Up–And Get Cute $pread Stuff! Back in August, I sent an email to the $pread staff list saying I thought we were going to have to stop publishing. Within the space of a year, most of our core staff members had left, and I was feeling burned out to the point where I had to accept that it was time for me to leave too. When we started this magazine, we optimistically figured it would only be a couple of years before we were able to start paying our staff. Turns out the publishing industry is a brutal place for an independent magazine like $pread, and four and a half years on this ass-kicking project is still completely dependent on an all-volunteer staff, many of whom put in 20 plus hours a week on top of their day—or night—jobs. Fortunately the new team of $preadsters are still enthusiastic enough to see our daily struggles as challenges instead of defeats. (2008 has certainly brought its fair share of challenges: On top of our collective mass burnout, we’ve had to move offices twice in the past six months and are now operating our of a six by six foot closet packed from wall to wall with boxes of magazines.) The problem is that $pread is not going to be able to carry on like this forever. Eventually even our most devoted volunteers will burn out, and it’s really difficult to keep morale up—and the magazine going—with such a high staff turnover. We’ve talked about cutting our Outreach Program to move toward financial stability, but we don’t want to have to stop sending free magazines to low income sex workers. That’s why we need your support. To inspire you to support $pread this holiday season we have two new cute giveaway items to tempt you with, both available until January 31st. DONATE $50 or more to get the cute $pread tote bag, pictured above! Or, DONATE $25 or more to get your very own $pread magnet. You can also get your hands on either of these items by becoming a Member or Lifetime Member, and of course, you can always support us the old-fashioned way by subscribing! The holiday season is upon us! A subscription to $pread, t-shirt, tank top, tote bag, back issues, and art posters are the perfect way to give to your friends while supporting an organization you love. Please help us keep the hustle up—and your favorite magazine in print—by buying, donating, and supporting. Thank you! 

Workers Occupy Chicago Factory

I received the following news yesterday. Bank of America's homepage doesn't offer a fax number or email address, but if you click on "Contact" you'll be directed to a web form. The article tells how you can contribute financially.

Workers occupy Chicago factory! Give your support!
By Jill White
Chicago
Published Dec 6, 2008 9:18 PM

Dec. 6—This afternoon more than 250
community activists, union leaders and others gathered in a rally in front of
Republic Windows Factory on Chicago’s northwest side. They were voicing their
solidarity with the workers who have refused to leave the factory in protest
over the shutdown of the plant. Speakers included members of the Service
Employees International Union; Teamsters; Chicago Teachers Union; American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and others.

In an interview following the rally, Armando Robles, President of UE Local
111, described the anger felt by the workers when they were told, with so little
notice, that not only were they losing their jobs but that their insurance
policies had been canceled and workers were not to receive vacation earned or
severance pay.

Robles said that according to Illinois law, the company is required to give
75 days notice of a shutdown, or pay workers for 75 days. The company blames the
Bank of America for not providing a line of credit to the company. But,
according to Robles, management has been lying to the workers and the union
about the status of company.

Following the vote to stage the sit-in, Robles described how the management
tried to isolate reporters from the workers, but they blocked the door so the
reporters could remain in the meeting.

Another worker, Silvia Magna, described how shocked and angry the workers
were when they found out they were losing their jobs. She said they all work
hard, and yet she only brings home $328 a week.

Many workers have been cut and lost fingers on the job. Magna said the
workers are determined to stay in the plant until “we get what we worked for.”
They blame both the owners and the bankers because the owners have not been
honest with the workers.

Magna says they are fighting not only for themselves and their families, “but
to be an inspiration to other workers to fight like we are. We are making
history because people have not seen the workers fight from inside the plants.”
She says the workers will do whatever is necessary and requested solidarity from
people from the outside.

UE organizer Leah Fried said that if there is no satisfactory resolution at a
meeting Dec. 8, and all else remains stable, the next solidarity action in
Chicago will be held at noon Tuesday, Dec. 9, at Bank of America at 231 S.
LaSalle. Fried said people should email and fax Bank of America demanding the
workers receive their pay due. Chicago supporters are encouraged to come by and
sign a solidarity banner that is posted in the plant lobby. Financial
contributions should be sent to Local 111, UE Hall, 37 S. Ashland Ave., Chicago,
IL 60607.

Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying
and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Foxhole Myth Rears Its Head Again

In an otherwise well-reasoned opinion piece about the hypocrisy of many erstwhile "free (capitalist) market" ideologues, David Faris regrettably (and quite superfluously to his actual point) repeated that old canard about atheists in foxholes. I've posted the following comment which I'll also submit as a letter to the editor:

It was disappointing to see David Faris trot out that old myth about there being no atheists in foxholes. There are plenty of atheists around who've been in foxholes and can testify otherwise. I'm optimistic that, once this is brought to his attention, Faris will realize how insulting this saying is.

After his public support for the Afghanistan war (in spite of his being a Quaker), it wasn't too surprising to hear NPR's Scott Simon offer a simple-minded commentary on Weekend Edition Saturday, chalking up the terrorism in Mumbai to "evil." But it provided a good opportunity to express some thoughts I hadn't had the chance to publish previously. The letter I've sent in response follows.

I was disappointed to hear Scott Simon ramble self-indulgently about "evil" today. I say "self-indulgently" because his comments expressed a surrender of intellectual clarity and curiosity to the impulse to dismissively label an enemy. Simon says the Mumbai terrorists had "learned to use their intellect to turn off their conscience." But empirically, as social psychologist [and my instructor for a psych intro course at Penn] John Sabini once put it, conscience is "what stops you from doing what you'd like to do." Can Simon seriously think the Mumbai terrorists liked slaughtering dozens of people who were no threat to them? Nonsense. Free of the constraints of conscience, they doubtless would rather have been lying on a beach sipping a cold drink. But, as the Milgram experiment demonstrated, a conscience governed by an authoritarian ideology can be used to make people do unnatural, anti-empathic things. As [fellow] cult survivor and sociologist Janja Lalich said in her keynote address to the International Cultic Studies Association in June, "The suicide bombers are not psychopaths. They are victims." The same applies to the Mumbai terrorists. 

Polygyny Increases Diversity, Study Finds

Another story in the 25 October Science News may interest partisans of sexual freedom. Titled "X chromosome is extra diverse," it describes a recent study finding evidence that "the X chromosome is more genetically diverse than would be expected if men and women passed along their genes equally." Despite this wording, I don't think this implies that it's the inequality between quantities of polyandry and polygyny that is responsible for increasing total genetic diversity. It's just that men are physically capable of having children by more mates than women are. It stands to reason that if women were capable of the same degree of polyandry, diversity would be increased even further. The bottom line is that this seems to be a good counterexample to the common assumption that monogamy is good for the species. The article can be read here: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/36900/title/X_chromosome_is_extra_diverse. 

The Climate Consensus That Never Was

The 25 October issue of Science News contains an article germane to one of the issues discussed recently by PhACT. Titled "Cooling climate 'consensus' of 1970s never was," it reports on a study convincingly documenting that, while popular media may have given disproportionate attention to the possibility of a new ice age (coincidentally, I only recently saw such an article in the first, 1976 edition of Analog Annual which I happened to purchase a few years ago), in "major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979...only seven articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions." This contradicts the claim frequently made by global warming skeptics that "not long ago experts all believed the Earth was cooling, not warming," the implication being that the experts could be wrong again. The Science News article is readable by the public at http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_%E2%80%98consensus%E2%80%99_of_1970s_never_was. 

How Not to Do a Story About Porn

I just sent the following letter in response to an article in Philadelphia's City Paper. The original article is at http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2008/11/13/meet-south-phillys-stoya.



It's clear that Matt Stroud came to his assignment with a stick up his innards about pornography.

It's not surprising that Stoya got annoyed with him after a while. Sex workers are used to being approached by people with a judgmental attitude toward their work -- people who can't accept them at face value; who assume, if they seem happy, that they must be hiding something. I'm willing to bet that's what Stoya picked up on and got "mad" at.

Stroud makes his bias clear in innumerable small ways. There's his description of contract stars as "indentured," as if to remind us of the almost-slavery of some early American settlers -- while ignoring that "mainstream" actors, athletes, and other sorts of professionals have agreed to very similar arrangements up to the present time.

His ignorance is screamed again when he quotes someone at a porn confab who tells him many of the women he sees there are "fluffers." This looks like a case of natives-hoax-anthropologist; there's actually no such thing as a fluffer. Porn producers are far too cheap to keep people on retainer just in case someone has trouble keeping it up; they simply expect the male talent to have this ability.

Near the end of the piece, Stroud says, "I know [Stoya's father] doesn't like [her performing in pornographic films]. Stoya says as much." Unless Stroud has left something out, this too is false. What she told him is that her father works for a "mega-Christian" employer. It's Stroud who insisted that "almost any company would find that difficult to deal with." And he likewise projects that onto her father.

Then there are the quotes interspersed with the story, which are of dubious relevance when not from plainly erotophobic sources. One of these is a book whose title equates kink with "hatred"; another is from Susan Brownmiller and concerns the relationship between war and rape. The statement in itself is incontestable but has no bearing whatever on the subject of pornography; its inclusion could only have been intended to create a spurious association in the mind of the reader.

But none of this came as a surprise after reading the column by [publisher] Bruce Schimmel, who clearly shares Stroud's bias. He claims that porn "feeds on exploitation," without ever bothering to define this term. The only objective sense of the word of which I'm aware is that of one person's living off the labor of another by means of some sort of power imbalance, typically an unequal distribution of property. Under this definition sex work occurs in both exploitative and non-exploitative contexts, like most any other kind of work. But the stigmatizing attitude expressed in the article contributes to the conditions for exploitation.

Schimmel even cites Boogie NightsBoogie Nights as having shown us what the lives of porn stars are really like. Um, excuse me, Bruce, but that film was fictionfiction; it reliably showed not what the porn world is like, but how Hollywood is comfortable portraying it and/or thinks we want to see it.

If Schimmel, Stroud, or anyone else wants to get a more accurate picture of the porn industry, I recommend they subscribe to Spread$pread, a magazine by and about sex workers. Their URL is http://www.spreadmagazine.org/.

NPR Forgets Definitions Again

This happens too often when the term in question is terrorism. The error committed by Weekend Edition Saturday consisted, as usual, in using it to mean any irregular warfare whose targets are Western, even though that's not the actual definition of the word. Here's what I wrote NPR:

In today's interview with the commander of the Marine barracks in Beirut bombed in 1983, your anchor accepted the guest's description of this event as beginning the period of "terrorist suicide car and truck bombings." This is a seriously inaccurate statement. It is accepted that the reason terrorism is particularly heinous is that, by definition, it targets civilians. But the Beirut bombing did not target civilians. To blur the meaning of this word undermines the moral position against terrorism. I urge WESat to run a correction.

You can write NPR as well by going to www.npr.org and clicking on "Contact Us." 

Can a girl sexually abuse herself?

That's the question asked by Tracy Clark-Flory in column for salon.com (at http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/10/11/child_porn/index.html) She writes:

This is unbelievable: A 15-year-old Ohio girl currently faces juvenile child pornography charges for allegedly taking and distributing nude photos of herself. After Licking Valley High School officials discovered the photos on the girl's phone and tipped off police last Friday, she was arrested, held in jail over the weekend and charged with possession of criminal tools and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, ABC reports. If convicted, she could spend several years in juvenile detention and be forced to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years of her life (although, since she is a first-time offender and a minor, the judge could decide against making her register). What's more, charges might still be filed against the students who received the photos, regardless of whether they received them unwillingly. State law holds that "anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony," according to the Newark Advocate. If convicted, they could face registration as a sex offender for 10 years.... [C]alling this girl a sex offender for distributing pornographic images of herself is crazy-talk. We have to acknowledge that, however unprepared she was to make the decision, she does have ownership over her own body; her sexual choice is not the same as an adult making a sexual choice for her.

I'm as outraged as Clark-Flory is, and I've written the prosecutor. His name is Kenneth Oswalt and he can be contacted at:

Licking County Prosecutor's Office

20 S. Second St, Newark, Ohio 43055

Hours of Operation (M-F, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

General Telephone number: (740) 670-5255 - Fax 740-670-5241

Put Children's Needs Before Adults' Bigotry -- Stop Arkansas's Initiated Act 1

I just received the message below from BiUnity of Philadelphia's listserv. I've made a donation and hope you will too.


Hello,

This is Laura Bellows, Field Coordinator from Arkansas Families First, the campaign against Initiated Act 1 in Arkansas. Initiated Act 1, which Arkansas voters will decide on this November, would prohibit unmarried co-habitating couples from adopting or fostering children. Although this act is intended as an attack on the LGBT community, it also would prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting or fostering.

I am asking for your help and contributions because, although Act 1 has not received a lot of national attention, we believe that our campaign is very important. This is the first ballot initiative to threaten adoption/foster care rights of unmarried couples. If it passes, right-wing groups across the country may try to replicate its success.

Luckily, the campaign against Initiated Act 1 is working. Arkansas press coverage of the issue has been overwhelmingly positive, partially thanks to our extensive coalition of child welfare organizations, such as Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and Arkansas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I am asking for your contribution because we still need an extra push. To do that, we need your organization's help. At this point, all of the money we raise will go directly to advertising.

Please share information about the campaign in Arkansas with your members. I am pasting a message below that you can email to your listserv, post to your blog, or use in a publication.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. You may reach me at laura@arkansasfamiliesfirst.org or on my cell phone at 832-489-6465. Our website is http://www.arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/. Thank you for your time and for your assistance!

Laura Bellows
Field Coordinator
Arkansas Families First
---
http://www.arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/

DONATE

____________ _________ _________ __
Arkansas Initiated Act 1 is the first ballot measure of its kind: if it were to pass, it would bar unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children. The only other state to have such a restrictive law is Utah. Arkansas Family Council, an offshoot of Focus on the Family, would rather deny loving homes to needy children than have committed unmarried couples raise children.

Luckily, Arkansas Families First, a coalition group made up of a variety of child welfare groups and progressive organizations, has been working to defeat this ban. Last week, the Arkansas Department of Human Services overturned a previous policy that barred unmarried couples in favor of case-by-case foster care: read more here. Governor Mike Beebe, who enjoys very high approval ratings in Arkansas, has stated that he opposes Initiated Act 1 and supports case-by-case adoption and foster care.

This week, Arkansas Families First released a video asking voters to vote NO on Act 1. This short video features adult former foster children and experts in the fields of child protection, psychology, psychiatry, pediatrics, and clergy who explain the negative consequences if the initiative were to pass. Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVg8Y49OmMM.

We need to get this information out to more people in Arkansas; our research shows that voters are very likely to vote NO on Act 1 once they hear our message. Please help us defeat this ballot measure: go to our webpage at http://www.arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/ and make a donation.

To defeat this measure, Arkansas Families First needs your help: go to the website now.

On Being Asked to Be a Spokeperson

Today I was confronted by an issue that I hadn't encountered for several years -- since before I realized that I had belonged to a cult.

A friend I encountered asked me to help her with something important. She said there's going to be a tenants' rights protest Thursday morning, and she asked if I knew anyone who could take part in it, or could refer anyone. This probably concerns her personally, since I know she was in court with a complaint against her landlord recently.

I was made very uncomfortable by her request. I hesitated in responding, and ultimately said I don't know anyone with a special interest in housing issues.

I understand where this is coming from. It's the same issue that arose in 2002, while I was preparing to volunteer with ISM. Another friend (Jewish) asked if I could take some item from her, such as a toy, to give to a Palestinian child while I was over there. I was similarly made uncomfortable by this request, and declined. At the time I couldn't really articulate why I felt this way; I only knew that for some reason it was important that what I was doing be entirely "my own," and that fulfilling my friend's request would compromise that.

More recently I've come to understand what this was about. In the cult, an effort was made to make me entirely into a vehicle for ideas and formulations that came from others, totally eliminating my autonomy. As a result, I'm made uncomfortable when I'm asked to act as someone else's representative, even though the context is no longer cultic. This was perhaps especially true in the 2002 incident, since a major motive for my volunteering to put myself in harm's way was to strengthen my sense of self, and overcome the fear that questioning any of the convictions I then held would just be a cowardly "retreat from revolutionary positions." If anything, my sensitivity to this kind of thing is probably greater now than it was then, as I've become conscious of where it comes from.

Review: Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett

I recently read Daniel Dennett's book Freedom Evolves. He offers some interesting speculations about how humans' cognitive and decision-making capacities have evolved, though he sometimes isn't as specific as I'd like. For instance, in the section of chapter 8 titled "A Self of One's Own," paragraph 10, he says he's going to tell a "Just So Story," but what follows isn't nearly detailed or concrete enough to meet this description, by my lights. Where he loses me is in his fixation with showing how a naturalistic, deterministic account of human decision-making is compatible with the concept of "free will" -- without ever offering a definition of this term. In fact, he doesn't offer any definition of "freedom" either until page 302 of my edition (trade paper), where he approvingly quotes someone else's. How can you devote a book to a subject and not bother to define it -- almost in passing -- till you're nearly at the end? Perhaps this oversight is related to his preoccupation with proving to "libertarians" -- defined as people who base their belief in free will on indeterminism -- that it's just as compatible with a deterministic view. If one is addressing oneself to people who believe in (and care about) a principle very strongly -- and who therefore must (at least think they) have a clear idea of what it means -- you may forget that other people don't think it's so clear. But he can't claim he doesn't know such people exist; here's how his definition of "hard determinists" begins (chapter 4, paragraph 3):

 

Hard determinism: Determinism is true, so we don't have free will. Hard-headed scientific types sometimes proclaim their acceptance of this position, even declaring it a no-brainer. Many of them would add: And if determinism is false, we still don't have free will -- we don't have free will in any case; it's an incoherent concept.

Since Dennett presumably disagrees with this last point, we might expect him here to disprove it by offering a clear definition of his own. But he doesn't. Instead, he continues:

 

But they typically [note: weasel word alert!] excuse themselves from exploring the question of how they can justify the often strongly held moral convictions that continue to guide their lives. Where does this leave us? What sense are we to make of human striving, praising, blaming?... (The hard determinists among you may find in subsequent chapters that your considered view is that whereas free will -- as you understand the term -- truly doesn't exist, something rather like free will does exist, and it's just what the doctor ordered for shoring up your moral convictions, permitting you to make the distinctions you need to make. Such a soft landing for a hard determinist is perhaps only terminologically different from compatibilism, the view that free will and determinism are compatible after all, the view that I am defending in this book.)

Note that Dennett spends fewer (in fact less than half as many) words actually defining hard determinists than he does in an effort to suggest that it's their position, rather than the concept of free will itself, that's incoherent. But this effort is built on a foundation of unproven or overgeneralized attributions. While I can't speak for anyone else, I have a handy answer to the question of how I "justify" my morality: I don't, because I have no need to. As a consistent materialist, I don't believe there are objectively existing moral principles -- objective in a metaphysical sense, rather than merely that of social consensus. A fortiori, I don't believe there's any objective obligation for me to "justify" the values or principles I use to help guide my actions. Darwin chose an apt turn of phrase when he wrote of "the evolution of moral sentiments" (my emphasis); it may be more plausible, from a naturalistic standpoint, to posit that sentiments gave rise to ethical abstractions rather than the other way around. Dennett's assumption that hard determinists need to "justify" their morality is clearly related to another assumption implied throughout the book: that one can't have any notion of morality without some concept of free will. Yet he never really states why he thinks this is so; he seems to just take it for granted. This may work fine insofar as he's addressing himself to libertarians. But for those of us who better fit his definition of hard determinists, it makes significant parts of his book, especially toward the end, seem simply irrelevant. As I suggested in an earlier post, I suspect that some people's resistance to determinism has less to do with an intellectual or even a moral objection, than with an emotional reaction to the idea. I've tried to discover the basis for this with a "thought experiment" -- meaning, in this case, an experiment actually performed, not just imagined, in my head, because the subject of the experiment is thought itself. It involves contemplating the idea of determinism as it applies to my own decision-making, and searching for whence the discomfort appears. It soon becomes apparent: the idea that my choices are predetermined manifests, metaphorically, as a sort of train track that my mind is traveling on, moving toward a fixed destination. Imagining this fixity entails, willy-nilly, imagining myself being unable to swerve from the track, which, in turn, entails imagining myself trying to swerve from it. And the feeling this imagined effort generates is one of unfreedom -- because real freedom, in the everyday sense of the term, means not being frustrated or obstructed from pursuing one's desire, whether by a physical barrier, threat of punishment, or what-have-you. Problem is, this feeling of unfreedom is an artifact of the way I mentally experience a metaphor for determinism, which is quite different from the way it actually works. In reality, insofar as determinism is true, I cannot want to swerve, to go any other way than the track does. This is because the track is only a metaphor for the fact that my desires themselves are preordained. Yet it is hard, if not impossible, to imagine the situation "from the inside" without experiencing just the opposite. This, by the way, draws our attention to the question of what is a "morally relevant" idea of freedom -- a phrase that appears frequently in Dennett's book. To me, it's relevant as all heck whether or not I can freely pursue my desire; and it feels decidedly "wrong" if I can't. And note that this is completely independent of whether I have any ability to reevaluate or change my desire; the experience of frustration is equally oppressive either way. Of course, I recognize that having "free will" in the latter sense may confer an advantage; it gives me expanded options for adapting to my environment when I can't adapt it to me. Nonetheless, there's nothing intrinsically gratifying about this ability, and Dennett simply hasn't proven his case when he presupposes that this is the kind of freedom most "worth having," or that we can't have morality without it.

Susie Abulhawa Running for Palestinian Children

My friend Susan Abulhawa is running to raise funds for Playgrounds for Palestine, which she founded. I encourage people to support her. Her message follows.

Dear friends, family, and supporters of PfP - As many of you know, Ramzy Baroud and I are teaming up this year to run the Philadelphia Marathon in November to raise money and awareness of PfP. Toward that goal, on Sunday, 21 September, I (along with my wonderful neighbor, Nelson Dunham) ran the Philadelphia Half Marathon, mostly as a half way point in training, but also to put on the table for this email - to ask you to support us! You can see my (unimpressive) results by going to Searchable Results and typing in my name. Ramzy and I aren't setting any records. Each of us has been told previously by our doctors that we could never run again. Ramzy had a serious back injury that necessitated spinal surgery. Likewise, my herniated discs and a badly injured knee with multiple surgeries is no picnic. Running such distances is a grueling experience and the pain of inevitable inflammation in these injured joints is magnified by exhaustion and depletion. In some small way, to keep going is symbolic of what Palestinians do every day in Palestine. Their refusal to accept a fate dictated by outsiders and their steadfast postures that get them through the impossibilities of each day, is a thing of inspiration that Ramzy and I want to honor with this run. In doing so, we are affirming each child's right to be a child, no matter their circumstances. Honoring that magical ingredient of being young, trusting, full of life and play, curiosity and hope is what we do at Playgrounds for Palestine. Please help us to bring color and play to children living with the deprivations of a military occupation. Ramzy wrote a very eloquent essay describing what it means to be a child living under occupation and how important it is to have play, no matter the circumstances. To read it, click here. Our goal is not only to finish and raise money. We want support of Palestinian causes at such events to become common. We'd like to see the young and old of all walks to participate in marathons, walkathons, bikathons, etc in support of Palestine. How well we do in November will help to set the stage and we're asking you to please help us reach our goal of $12,000 for one playground. Anything above that will go to the Deir Yasin Scholarship Fund, which supports Palestinian students entering university. To give, please go here to support the runners. Warmly, susie September 2008 

Memes and Frames

In chapter 6, paragraph 16 of Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett writes of memes, "[W]e must consider as a real possibility the hypothesis that the human hosts are, individually or as a group, either oblivious to, or agnostic about, or even positively dead set against some cultural item, which nevertheless is able to exploit its hosts as vectors." It strikes me that this is perfectly exemplified by the effect, noted by frame theorists like George Lakoff, whereby particular cognitive frames (e.g., the authoritarian-family frame most active in conservatives), by inducing those who positively dislike them (e.g., progressives) to react to their manifestations unreflectively, actually get themselves repeated and thereby reinforced in public discourse. In effect this means these frames exploit progressives' negative feeling about them to get themselvs replicated despite, or more accurately because of, that negative feeling. In these instances such frames could be regarded as robust examples of parasitical memes.

Reading *Freedom Evolves*

Yesterday I started reading Daniel Dennett's book Freedom Evolves. A few years ago my friend Deborah Goddard told me it centers on a concept called "evitability." Although I hadn't heard the term before, I'd given some thought to a naturalistic analysis of the concept of free will, so I hazarded the guess that this term describes the situation in which an individual perceives a possible course of action but has the ability to choose not to take it. (At least I think that's more or less what I said -- this was a few years ago.) She said I had it about right. So I won't be surprised if I don't see anything crucial in this book that I hadn't more or less thought of myself; but how he gets there may nonetheless be interesting. My own thinking had been guided by a sort of Socratic examination of why people have this concept, starting from the assumption that it comes from some aspect of subjective experience. Clearly the experience is that of making a choice, so the essential question was: why do (some) people see this as necessarily involving some process that is uncaused? It struck me immediately that the reason for this would be that we often don't see the causes of our decisions, at least before we've arrived at them. And perhaps some people are resistant to the notion that something important is going on in their heads of which they're not conscious. As the very notion of the unconscious is a pretty recent one, this wouldn't be too surprising; for people who've by default thought of their consciousness as their entire minds, the notion of the unconscious may provoke some paranoia. In fact I remember my father telling me about the unconscious mind when I was something like eight, and emphasizing -- presumably in response to some discomfort I had with it -- that I shouldn't regard it as my enemy. Despite that, I continue even now to have a little "spooky" feeling whenever I hear the song that became associated with that conversation in my head. Now nearing the end of Chapter 4 of the book, I would mainly note that Dennett's argument about why determinism doesn't imply inevitability, though sound in relation to the definition he offers for the latter term, may not get at what makes some people uncomfortable with determinism. I suspect that despite his point that determinism doesn't make anything inevitable in a practically relevant sense, this may do nothing to relieve some people's emotional discomfort with the idea that "they" (in the sense of their consciousness) aren't in control of their fate. As for myself, I focus on the practical consequence of the notion, rather than an emotional response to it: if determinism makes behavior on my part that is in my interest -- that avoids things that would harm me -- "inevitable" because of mental processes that occur outside of or prior to consciousness, my response is, "Great -- that's just what I wanted!" Why would such a favorable situation upset me? Nonetheless it apparently does upset some, and I suspect helping them overcome this, if that's possible, may require the application of psychology and not just straightforward philosophical argumentation.