Marriages that expire?!

A (quasi-)prominent political leader in Germany has brought to her platform the idea that marriages should expire after 7 years. (See the rest of the story here). I am, for once, at a complete loss for words in how to respond. The hypocrisy latent within the arguments is just too much for me to take; so I'll open up this issue for discussion.

More OJ anyone?

The famed football star is not only once again in the news but also close to being in court. See the "full" story here.

My question would be: "you know you're already a high-profile individual who has attracted a large amount of attention--not all of it good, of course--so why intensify the fire by acting in this way (even if the stuff is legitimately yours)?" It would seem that OJ would (hopefully) go about things through the proper channels--i.e., hear about the situation, call the authorities, and then go to the casino to "peacefully reacquire [the] personal items."

But alas, such a strategy was not taken--nor any other strategy that would have not brought on massive media attention and a possible theft charge. I guess we'll have to see how this one plays out in the coming days. Who knows: OJ's next book will probably be entitled, If I Did Rob a Vegas Casino.

Kind of Creepy

And icky.  Its pretty cool, but gives me the creeps just thinking about it.  Be sure to "blow up" the picture.

"Homo politicus" (?!)

Alright, now this is a new one for me. Earlier this morning, I found an article suggesting the idea that one's political views may be hard-wired into the human brain. Here's the primary tag-line (which comes after a bad understanding of Aristotle's meaning):

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

It goes on to suggest that one's political views are generationally inherited. Then, an odd (seemingly unrelated) test was conducted to "prove" the point where Conservatives and Liberals were both asked to perform a series of tasks to see how they would respond to the need to change one's "normal" habits. The Conservatives were found to be less likely to change (presumably because they "crave order and structure") where the Liberals were more flexible to the idea of change (presumably because they "adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances).

What intrigued me the most about this article was that Conservatives were the ones who were criticized for not adapting when faced with the idea that things "should be changed". My question would be: who are the ones calling for the need to change, and/or what are the reasons behind the "oughtness" to the expectation? The wrench that could be tossed into this criticism would be: it might be fair to say that Liberals would be less likely to "change" if the call to do so came from Conservatives.

But honestly, the overall hesitancy seems to be rooted in something much deeper than one's political views--i.e., it's not about Liberal vs. Conservative; it's about (perceived) right vs. wrong or good vs. bad. If a cannibal asked me to change my views about consumption of human flesh, I would stand firm in my belief that such a change would be wrong and/or bad. By the same token: if I asked a devout Mormon to ignore the teachings of the Joseph Smith (or the Mormon Church), they would see my request as utter blasphemy.

The question of "oughtness", however, tends to make matters a bit more difficult. The simplistic beginning point would have to be the governing reason for why a given person should change. If the reason is because person "A" wishes to exercise dominance over person "B", then the reason is unjustified. If the reason is because person "A" is truly seeking the summum bonum for person "B" (not in the Machiavellian sense, of course), then the reason is justified. Or, if the position of person "A" is actually true, then person "B" has no justifiable reason to ignore it. (This obviously calls for "fair play" from both parties).

In the present case: if a Liberal is requiring change from a Conservative simply because the Liberal wishes to appear to be more powerful and/or persuasive, the Conservative has the right to stand strong. (Also, it should be noted: the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if the Liberal has justifiable reasons and those reasons for change are beneficial for the human race, then the Conservative needs to listen. (Again, the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if a Liberal argument is actually true,* then the Conservative would not have any solid reason to ignore it. (One last time: this must go the other way as well). However, this article would make it appear as though this idealistic outlook is nothing more than that--i.e., idealistic (or, unrealistic). :-)
___________________________________________
* Some would criticize me as being heretical for even suggesting this idea.

Witherington Reviews J.R.R. Tolkien's "Children of Hurin"

I've long been a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's writing - long before Jackson's superb film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, I spent many hours enjoying the actual books.  I have not yet had a chance to read the newly released Children of Hurin, but this review by biblical scholar Ben Witherington III at least confirms that it will be worthwhile when I get there.  If you enjoy Tolkien, it's worth a read.