Harry Potter’s Army

I went to see Order of the Phoenix today. There are certain advantages to being friends with the Minister of Magic. You get to see certain movies two days before all the regular muggles. In addition, being friends with the Ministry and its agents, as this film amply demonstrates, is good for the continued health of your hands. So let me raise my hand in salute to Imelda Staunton for playing what is most probably the freakiest villainess in a pink cardigan. We must have order and one must respect those in authority particularly if they have nice little smiles and nice little tittering laughs. One of the main weaknesses of the previous films has been that they rested completely on the shoulders of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. This was a task that, particularly in the first two films, proved to be more then they could handle. (Though they certainly have improved with age.) This was particularly frustrating considering all the talent that was being left to rot in glorified cameo roles. This is the first film in the series in which one of the adults gets to really grab the limelight.

I was pleasantly surprised by Luna Lovegood. I had assumed that, considering the fact that we are dealing with an 870 page book condensed into a two hour film, she would be all but completely removed from the film. A true pity as I happen to love her character. Not only is Luna a major character in the film, with a role almost on par with Ron and Hermione, but they even created two scenes, not from the book, with Harry talking to Luna. Evanna Lynch, with her dreamy voice, captures the role perfectly. She is one kid to come out of Harry Potter so far whom I would really be interested in seeing in post-Potter roles. I would have also loved to have gotten more of Tonks, but that was not to be. Natalia Tena though does a good job with the little that she is given.
The fight at the ministry was brilliantly conceived. I was disappointed though by dual between Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort. The film does not have the statues coming to life to fight Voldemort. Another thing that annoyed me was Grawp. I did not really care too much for him in the books, but in the film he looks like the guy from MAD.

All in all this is the best of the films so far. Oh well ten days to go before Deathly Hollows and I sure am all Pottered up.

A Response to a Critic of my Aspie Posts II

I admit that I have very mixed feelings in regard to the issue of Aspie rights and tolerance toward Aspies. I feel like a Democrat who denounces Republican tax cuts but then insists on getting his refund. There is nothing unreasonable about this. You may believe that such tax cuts are a mistake and even an absolute disaster but if they are being given out then what is wrong with getting on line and demanding your share. I oppose multiculturalism and diversity at least how they are practiced by the left today. I believe in protecting people’s physical well being. I do not care if people’s feelings get hurt or if they do not feel validated by the rest of society. The very notion that people should be protected from the emotional trauma of being exposed to beliefs they oppose strikes me as a mortal threat to the free society. If race, skin color and sexual orientation really do not matter then they should not matter. If no one can suffer for these things then no one should benefit from them either. If society is allowed to give benefits to people for these things then they should also be allowed to discriminate against those same people. For me, a free society is one in which everyone can say offensive things to everyone else and everyone has to learn to be tolerant of everyone else.
Of course, once we are going to be playing the diversity game then I want to get every possible benefit. If the government, schools, and businesses are, in the name of diversity, going to give certain preferences to people because of their race, skin color or sexual orientation and do everything to make them feel validated then I want those same preferences and validation for the type of diversity I bring. I am an Aspie I have my own unique perspective, therefore, I should be given preferences and made to feel validated.
I am not some sort of Aspie radical. I do not believe that Aspies should be allowed to do whatever they want without any societal interference. Man is a political animal, we are not autonomous beings living on desert islands. This applies to Aspies and to everyone else. Many people may find Aspie behavior offensive and I am not saying they are wrong. Many people may find homosexual behavior to be offensive and I am not saying that they are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. When you say that Aspies have to listen to what other people tell them how are you different than the people who say that homosexuals have to listen to what other people tell them.

On a side note. I admit that I often lack due diligence in regards to my grammar. Feel free to point out any mistakes that I make.

A Response to a Critic of my Aspie Posts I

Your sense of humor is remarkable. The following is a quote from your tongue in cheek essay."Anyone who uses the term “Asperger Syndrome” should be viewed as a bigot. They are implying that my state of being is somehow less than completely human and are robbing me of my humanity. Any attempt on the part of the psychiatric community to “cure” us or make us less Aspie like should be viewed as Nazism. Furthermore, society should be made to be more tolerant of us Aspies. We should not have to act in a less Aspie fashion."

You have taken me out of context. What I tried to do with these two pieces on Asperger Syndrome was to take the same logic used by the Gay rights movement and apply it to “Aspie rights.” I believe that the arguments used presently by the Gay rights movement, particularly the notion that homosexuality is a state of being and that any opposition to a homosexual act is, therefore, a denial of being and therefore bigotry, to be fallacious. I have therefore offered a reductio ad absurdum argument against this belief.
I am a supporter of Gay rights simply on libertarian grounds. I believe in keeping the government out of people’s bedrooms. A person should be able to sleep with another consenting person without the government’s interference. (I suspect that I am far more consistent in this belief than most people on the cultural left, but this can be something for another time.) The limitation of the libertarian argument though is that it does not extend outside of the government into society. The same government which I want kept out of people sex lives I also want kept out of people’s religious taboos and their petty likes and dislikes. People have the right to follow religions that ban certain actions and they have the right to find certain types of behavior repellent. They may not have the right to enforce those beliefs on others, but, on the other hand, they have the freedom of association to choose to have or not have dealings with such people and they do not have to give them jobs.
People should be free to follow religions that say that homosexuality is a sinful act. They should be free to find homosexual behavior abhorrent. While I have no intention of allowing our government to be turned into an anti-homosexual theocracy, I have no intention of making social conservatives like homosexuals or give them jobs. If someone does not want to give a homosexual a job then that is his concern. By the same token, no one has to like Aspies or give them jobs. If you find me annoying then you are free to openly dislike me. If you so happen to be on the hiring committee at a university to which I seek employment feel free to reject me.
Ultimately I think we are in agreement that it is my obligation to adapt to society; society does not have to adapt to me. In the future, when I have to go in for a job interview I will do my best to make sure that my clothes do match and that my shirt is tucked in. All the years of my mother prodding have to be good for something.

More to follow …

All the Worlds a Stage in Which the Men are Mere Puppets of the Women Around Them: A Book Review of the Constant Princess by Philippa Gregory

The Constant Princess tells the story of Catherine of Aragon, the youngest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella and wify number one of Henry VIII. (This is the wife which Henry had to make his own church in order to divorce her.) Catherine definitely had an interesting life story and in the hands of a more capable writer, this could have been a worthwhile book. She was originally betrothed to Henry’s older brother Arthur. Soon after she arrived from Spain though, Arthur, one fine day, suddenly dropped dead. (This tended to happen a lot in premodern Europe.) So what to do with this sixteen-year-old Spanish princess sitting in your kingdom with a fat dowry attached to her? Well Henry VII, using impeccable medieval political logic, decided to not send her home and instead decided to have her marry Arthur’s little brother Henry, who was six years younger than her. This required special papal dispensation from the Pope. This becomes important later on because when Henry VIII tried to divorce her he argued that he should have never been given the dispensation to marry Catherine in the first place. (Henry VIII can serve as a wonderful model to us Jews as to how to shop for heterim. I ask my Rav for a heter to marry my brother’s wife. Then I ask the Rav to say that he never should have given me the heter in the first place and that I am free to marry my pregnant mistress. When the Rav refuses to give me the heter to annul his earlier heter, I simply form my own shul make myself my own Rav and give myself all the heterim I want.)
The problem with this book is that it is a feminist fruvel (frum novel). As with Jewish fruvels, all pretenses of plot, narrative, and character are sacrificed for one very noble goal, the declaration of the superiority of the given group over everyone else. In this case, the group in question are women. The whole book is premised on the notion that men are stupid, lecherous and easily manipulated, particularly if they are European, white and Christian. It is the women who are in control of everything. Isabella is the ruler of Castile and Aragon and the commander in chief of its armies. Ferdinand is that nice boy who helps out mainly by staying out of the way. Henry VII is a smelly, patriarchal barbarian who has to constantly fight to suppress the overwhelming desire to rape his daughter in law. The court is run by his mother Margaret, who we are told, placed Henry VII on the throne and for all intents and purposes is the ruler of England. Margaret is a villain of sorts in this story in that she is the primary adversary of Catherine through much of the book but this is also in keeping with the book’s ideology. In this matriarchal world in which men are in essence incapable of putting on their own trousers without some women’s help, it only makes sense that Catherine’s main adversary would be a woman; a man would not have the necessary control over his own circumstances to qualify as a decent villain. The most positive male character in the entire book is Arthur and his main virtues are that he agrees with Catherine that England is completely uncivilized and that he promises to implement all of Catherine’s proposed reforms and make England a more enlightened place. Even he is incapable of having an independent thought. Arthur and Catherine are lovers but when Arthur dies Catherine, acting upon Arthur's dying wish, claims that the marriage was never consummated and that she is still a virgin. Henry VIII is an arrogant clod whose only real talents seem to be jousting and archery. He is incapable of doing anything right and leaves the kingdom to Catherine's very capable hands.
The climax of the book is when Catherine saves England from Scotland. She does this by getting Henry VIII to participate in a campaign against the French. With Henry safely out of the way, Catherine personally leads the English army to war against the Scots and single-handedly crushes them at the battle of Flodden.
I have no objection to writings books with strong female characters that are in control over their own destiny. The moment one starts to write a book simply for the purpose of having strong female characters one has stopped writing literature and has started to write propaganda.

I am an Aspie and Proud of it II

I wrote the previous article on Asperger Syndrome with a heavy dose of tongue in cheek. I do not see Aspies as a persecuted group, but I also do not see homosexuals as a persecuted group. Aspies and homosexuals are simply two groups of people who are seen by many, in the general society, as being deviant. Because of this, people in these groups find themselves alienated from the rest of society and subjected to societal pressure to conform.
When I wrote the previous article I did not believe that there were people with real prejudices against those with Asperger Syndrome. A comment posted on that article has proven me wrong. Just goes to teach you: be careful what you joke about, it may be serious.
To respond to some of the comments made:
"Gays can and do sometimes behave in ways that make it impossible to detect that they are gay. If someone objects to them because they are gay, that can be seen as bigotry. Aspies often behave in socially inappropriate ways. For someone to object to their behavior is not bigotry. Anyone can find someone else to be boring, rude or annoying. Given the choice, most employers would choose an employee who is not annoying."
Well, imagine this scenario. The history department at Ohio State is interviewing candidates for a teaching position. A male applicant comes in wearing an earring, and a pink shirt and to top everything off he constantly uses the word "fabulous." What would happen if a professor on the hiring committee were to comment that it would not be appropriate for such a prestigious institution as Ohio State to hire someone who dressed in such an "uncivilized" manner and behaved in such an "unacademic" manner? That professor would be crucified on the spot as a homophobe. Now I come in as the next candidate wearing clothes that do not match and with my shirt half untucked. If a member of the committee were to suggest that such a mode of dress is not befitting for a professor at Ohio State, that person would not be accused of being bigoted against Aspies even if it were known that I did have Asperger Syndrome. In fact, as things stand now, someone can decide that my having Asperger Syndrome in of itself makes me unfit to be a college professor.
Now in the case of the homosexual, by coming dressed as he did, he was making a political and ideological statement. Any member of the committee who does not share those beliefs should, therefore, be justified in turning this candidate down. Would anyone scream bigotry if a Structuralist member of a committee turned down a Poststructuralist candidate? In my case, when I wear clothes that do not match and have my shirt half untucked it is not because I am making some sort of political or ideological statement. The way my mind is structured is that I do not care if my clothes match or if my shirt is tucked in. I have far more important things to think about and it is likely that I will not notice how I am dressed unless someone points it out to me. So when someone objects to how I dress they are attacking my being. The way I dress has no bearing on my ability to teach history. The fact that my mode of dress bothers you is simply a sign that you are a "close-minded bigot," who is not willing to tolerate alternative modes of dress.

"Your tirade is itself a symptom of Aspergers Syndrome. Your brain works in a way that makes you believe that you can pronounce your extreme views and get others to change to your way of thinking. See if you have any luck with it over the next several decades. The world doesn't need more teachers who are aspies. It needs more aspies to listen to the sound advice of others. Consider, at least once in a while, that maybe the rest of the world is correct and that you are wrong."

There are tens of not hundreds of thousands of blogs out being written by people who have "extreme" views and who wish to get others to "change" their way of thinking. To the best of my knowledge, most of these people do not have Asperger Syndrome. Why is it simply Aspies who have to sit down and listen to what everyone else has to say? We are human beings too and we have the right to our own opinions. We are a part of the fabric of society, which we enrich by being ourselves. I question and challenge myself all the time. I firmly believe that I am capable of being wrong. This is one of the reasons why I speak out. I want someone to point out the flaws in my reasoning.

Coming Out of the Closet: I am an Aspie and Proud of It.

I have a condition known as Asperger Syndrome. It’s a type of low-level, high-functioning autism. I see the world from a very different perspective than that of most people and process information differently. Because of this, despite the fact that I am, by most accounts, very smart and working on a Ph.D. in History, I have trouble dealing with social situations. I tend not to be able to pick up on body language and other sorts of social cues that others take for granted. Alternatively, one could say that there is nothing wrong with my social skills. I am simply someone who operates on a different but completely equal plane of thought. I imagine that if most of the world were Aspies then we would label all non-Aspies as being socially awkward.
There is another group of people who live their lives in ways that many people would find odd and even disturbing. These people were, until the early 70s, labeled as having a psychiatric illness. Nowadays thanks to a very successful social campaign these people have been brought into the social mainstream and it is no longer acceptable, in polite company, to imply that these people are in any way inferior or anything less than completely normal. I am of course referring to homosexuals. Supporters of gay rights argue that homosexuality is a state of being and that any attempt to place any legal or social constraints upon them would be to deny them their humanity. They would argue that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle and that it should in no way be viewed as being in any way inferior to heterosexuality.
I bring up the issue not to attack the gay rights movement, but to simply point out that the same logic should apply to those who have Asperger Syndrome. I see being an Aspie as part of who I am and it is something I would not want to change even if I could. Being an Aspie is at least as much a part of my being as homosexuality is for a homosexual. I have an even better claim because in my case there is no defining action involved. Being an Aspie is solely a matter of how my brain functions, not of any action that I may or may not do. In the case of homosexuality, one could at least make the argument that the objection is to the act of sodomy and not to a person’s state of being. This argument cannot be made in the case of Asperger Syndrome. If you have a problem with me as an Aspie then it must be because you have an objection with my very state of being.
If it is bigotry to label homosexuality as a disease and to impose social constraints on homosexuals then the same thing should apply to Asperger Syndrome. Anyone who uses the term “Asperger Syndrome” should be viewed as a bigot. They are implying that my state of being is somehow less than completely human and are robbing me of my humanity. Any attempt on the part of the psychiatric community to “cure” us or make us less Aspie-like should be viewed as Nazism. Furthermore, society should be made to be more tolerant of us Aspies. We should not have to act in a less Aspie fashion. People need to recognize that although we are different, our way of living is just as acceptable as theirs. Anyone who implies that we are in any way shape or form less than completely normal should be expelled from polite society. In order to facilitate this, the government needs to put Aspie tolerance into school curriculums and actively seek to hire Aspie teachers so as to provide good Aspie models for children.
If it were to happen that at some future date I should be denied a job because my Aspie personality proved disagreeable to someone on a hiring committee it should be viewed as no different than if that person on the hiring committee were to deny a job to someone merely because that person acted in a gay fashion. Society should not stand for such bigotry and should immediately rectify the situation by making sure that that person is never again in a position to promote his bigoted agenda. I, of course, should be immediately be given the position I so richly deserve.
Anyone who supports the concept of gay Civil Rights must be willing to apply the same logic to the cause of Aspie Civil Rights. Anyone who fails to give us Aspies the same rights as homosexuals is a bigot. Anyone who supports gay rights and does not support Aspie rights is a bigot and a hypocrite. Of course, if we were to reject the gay rights argument then none of this would apply. If society has the right to look upon those who live differently as being deviant and force such people into choosing between being true to themselves or being accepted then I, as a proud Aspie, will, along with all other social deviants, have to make a tough choice.

The Atheist Side to the Argument from Design II

I have often heard anti-evolutionists respond to evolution by saying that the theory is ridiculous because clearly the world could not have been created by chance and must have had a creator. This completely misses the point. The theory of evolution sidesteps the argument from design. It offers a process in which one can, given 500 million years or so get from a single-celled organism to human beings. Atheists can argue that just as we can account for how we got from level plains to the Rocky Mountains simply by postulating millions of years and sifting geological plates so too we can account for how we got from single-celled organisms to human beings by postulating Darwinian evolution; species evolve through natural selection. In both cases, one should have no need to seek recourse from some intelligent designer. Evolution raises some very serious theological questions. First and foremost is the validity of the argument from design. It also calls into question divine providence, the notion of a human species and the validity of human intelligence. I can think of many other issues raised by evolution. Way at the bottom of my concerns is the validity of a literal reading of Genesis or, of many Midrashim. From a theological perspective, I would be far less bothered by anti-evolutionists if they would rally around the very real theological issues that are at stake. By rallying around biblical authority anti-evolutionists show that they do not really care about God, religion, or theology. What they care about is power. The bible must be defended as the ultimate authority because as the ultimate authority it gives ultimate power to those who possess the authority to interpret it. If God wrote the bible he did not do it in order that people could believe that it is true or to allow some people to strut around and claim to be better than scientists. The bible is a moral and theological text. It points to more than just its own authority.

The Atheist Side to the Argument from Design

The teleological argument for the existence of God (the argument from design) postulates that the design of the world is so unbelievably complex that it must have been the creation of some sort of intelligent designer. If you were to paint a masterpiece and tell someone that the painting was created by randomly throwing paint at a canvas, that person would think that you are either a liar or a raving lunatic. Says the theist: the world is so much more complex then a simple painting therefore only a liar or a lunatic would ever suggest that it came to be through random forces of nature.

There is a flip side to this argument that needs to be acknowledged. For this argument from painting also offers us a standard from which to judge randomly created designs. If I were to randomly throw different colors of paint at a canvas I can create some unbelievably complex designs. So complex that it would be difficult to reproduce those same exact designs even if one set out to consciously copy each and every splotch of paint on a different canvas. Furthermore, with just a little push of the imagination one can often see pictures in the splotches of paint that are quite detailed. When I was younger I used to play a game with myself in which I would try to make out pictures from the cracks on the walls and ceiling. The pictures that I saw were far better drawn then anything that I ever could draw on my own. We must admit that random splotches of paint and cracks in the ceiling are in fact better artists then many people.

If we look at the world we must admit to the existence of complex objects randomly created by nature. Even the most ardent creationist would admit that there is no intelligent design in the placement of every peak, valley and rock in the Rocky Mountains. The Rocky Mountains are in the specific shape they are in due to random forces of nature such as wind, volcanoes and the shifting of geological plates. Despite the fact that the Rocky Mountains are the creation of random forces of nature, it would not be possible for human beings to recreate the Rocky Mountains down to each and every pebble. Clearly random forces of nature are far more capable designers then even people.

When we look at the world, what sort of design are we seeing? Is it the design of the Mona Lisa or is it the design of random splotches of paint thrown against a canvas?

Can One Believe in Heliocentrism and Still be a Scientist?

Four hundred years ago Judaism and Christianity were challenged by the rise of heliocentrism, the belief that the earth circles around the sun, and the collapse of geocentrism, the belief that the sun, stars and all the planets circle around the earth. This was a problem for Jews and Christians in that according to the book of Joshua, the sun stood still for the Children of Israel, implying that the sun circles the earth. This without any doubt is a major challenge to the authority of the Bible. In the standard Whig narrative, this shift is seen as one of the two great triumphs of the forces of science over the forces of religion, the other one, of course, being evolution. What is so often glossed over though is that, while heliocentrism is a challenge to Judaism and Christianity, this challenge pales in comparison to the challenge heliocentrism poses to empiricism and any faith in humanity’s ability to understand the natural world around him. If I accept heliocentrism, which I do, then I must recognize that when I look up at the sky I am falling victim to one massive optical illusion for the sun, the stars and the planets all appear to circle around the earth. If my senses can be fooled on something as basic as the sky above me then I must ask whether I am mistaken about everything else I think I know about the natural world. I must like Descartes come to doubt whether I have hands or feet or whether there is even an earth if it is not merely an illusion. If I cannot be confident that the world even exists then I must also come, like David Hume to question whether there is even such a thing as a law of nature. Why should a non-existent world even have consistent laws? If I cannot talk about laws of nature then I can have no science. How can I search for patterns and rules that do not exist? If my belief in science can survive admitting that the heavens are a giant optical illusion then surely my religion can survive admitting that Joshua is not meant to be taken literally.
Today with evolution we find ourselves in a similar situation. Can our faith survive admitting that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally? This may be a problem but it is nothing compared to the problem faced by the believer in science. If I accept evolution, which I do, then I must admit that, as C.S Lewis argued, my intelligence, my ability to reason, and every other tool with which I explore the natural world is the byproduct of natural selection. If human beings use the methodology of science simply because that mode of thinking helps the human species survive then we have no reason to assume that it is valid. As with heliocentrism, if my belief in science can survive admitting that the human mind is the product of natural selection then surely my religion can survive admitting that Genesis is not to be taken literally.
When reading Richard Dawkins, I am reminded of Nachmonides’ constant reply to Pablo Christiani at the Barcelona debate: if you truly understood what you were saying then you would realize that your claim is a far bigger problem for you than it is for me.

Awards Dinner

STUDENT AWARDS BBQ
Wednesday, May 30, 4:30 - 6:00 p.m.
at OSU Hillel
46 E. 16th Ave.

Join us for a free BBQ dinner to congratulate your fellow students for their achievements in Jewish studies

The Gretel B. Bloch Scholarship:
CORI ZAREM

The Ellen E. and Victor J. Cohn
Scholarship for Study at Hebrew University:
WHITNEY PARSON, KATE LEVIN, JAMESON LETT

The Morris and Fannie Skilken
Scholarship for Yiddish and Ashkenazi Studies:
KATE LEVIN

Roth Essay Contest:
ELLIOT KLAYMAN, AARON DESATNIK

The Samuel M. Melton Graduate Fellowship in Jewish Studies:
UFUK ULUTAS

The George M. and Renée K. Levine
Graduate Fellowship in Jewish Studies:
BENZION CHINN

Diane Cummins Scholarship in Hebrew and Yiddish
KATE LEVIN

Tyranny and the Left's Failure of Imagination

I often ask anti-war protestors if it was morally acceptable for us to go to war with Nazi Germany, a country that had not attacked us and which posed no direct threat to our interests. There is no reason why we could not have, in the days after December 7, 1941, sent Joseph Kennedy to Berlin to tell Hitler that we had no interest in fighting him and were willing to break off our support of Great Britain if he would not try to stop us from fighting Japan, a country that did attack us. We spent billions of dollars and put several million American soldiers on the frontlines to fight an "unnecessary" war.
The thing that really gets me about the war in Iraq is that we have absolutely lost the moral argument. Most of the world and most of the Democratic Party looks at what happened in Iraq and see America as the villains. That just boggles the mind: we invaded a country under the control of Saddam Husain, a brutal dictator, who had been our most prominent enemy for over a decade. This was a man who had no respect for human rights and who broke countless treaties. If you cannot go to war against Saddam then who on this planet are you allowed to fight a war with? This is not to say that it was a smart thing to go to war with Saddam. That is a separate debate.
After we defeated Saddam we set about reconstructing the country. This was no different than our occupations of Germany and Japan after the war, countries which we did far worse things to. As with the invasion of Iraq, the wisdom of our attempt to help put together a functioning government and country is not the question here. Whether our heads were in the right places or not, our hearts were. How is it that Arab terrorists can murder innocent Iraqi civilians and America gets the blame? The narrative we have seen after every attack these past few years is that this is an example of our failure. The dead civilians are added to the cost of our invasion and occupation. For all intents and purposes, we might as well have murdered them ourselves. Most of the left in this country and most of the western world seem to have trouble telling the difference between trying to fight against tyranny and tyranny itself. They become the moral equivalents of each other.
I would suggest that the problem is that the left, at a fundamental level, is suffering from a failure of the imagination to truly appreciate tyranny. For the modern-day left, a tyrannical government is one that does things like not allow gay marriage, or abortion and keeps files on what books people check out of the library. This becomes a major problem when the left has to confront a real tyrant like Saddam. They do not have a word for a type of government acting above and beyond making stupid laws that interfere with people’s lives. As a result, they cannot imagine such a thing existing. So Hitler and Saddam were tyrants and so is George W. Bush. Words like tyranny, racism, bigotry, and injustice no longer have any meaning. As a fighting nineteenth-century liberal I find that scary.

New Proof for Global Warming

I admit that I have my doubts about Global Warming. How much has the earth's temperature risen over the past century? Have humans played a significant role in this warming? How negative will the effects be and is there a cost-effective means of countering it?

I do not have a Ph.D. in Climatology, Ecology, or Earth Sciences. So I am in no position to go about evaluating the evidence. This is an issue that is so politically loaded that one simply does not know whom to trust. (Surely not Al Gore) Normally, I would say trust the experts, but I must confess that I have no idea how to even go about figuring out who are the experts. This creates the frustrating situation where I must throw up my hands and say I really just do not know.

Today, while walking around campus, I was handed a Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet titled "Implications of the Gore Hoax." In true to form Larouche fashion, he proceeds to explain how Global Warming is a hoax being perpetrated upon the world as part of a grand conspiracy by the intellectual heirs to the Venetian bankers and Norman Crusaders in order to take over the world.

Clearly, if Lyndon Larouche is denouncing something as part of the synarchist plot to bring down the global economy and create a new world empire then what he is denouncing must be good and true. Ergo, if Larouche does not believe in Global Warming, then it must really be happening.

Abortion Rights and the Health Exemption for Thieves

The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, has upheld a Federal law banning “partial-birth” abortions. The main objection to this law and other similar attempts to place limits on abortion rights posed by abortion rights activists is that such laws lack exceptions for the health of the mother. Opponents of abortion have objected to writing such health exemptions into the law, seeing them as loopholes which would render abortion laws to be meaningless. Anyone could have an abortion and simply claim that there was a health issue involved. (That health issue could be headaches, throwing up in the morning and looking like a bloated whale.)
The problem I have with the health argument in regards to abortion is that implicitly every law has a health exception. We have laws against stealing but no one is going to put a man in jail because he was starving and therefore stole a loaf of bread. The police are not going to make an arrest, the DA is not going to not prosecute, the jury will not convict and the judge is not going to sentence. This health exemption is not written anywhere but it is self understood. For every law in existence I could construct an emergency scenario which would justify the breaking of that law. There is no need to have exceptions for these emergency scenarios to be put onto the books. If one finds oneself in one of these emergency situations then one commits the crime and trusts in the fact that the legal system will understand that this was one of those emergency situations and make an exception.
If a doctor honestly believes that there is a legitimate health risk if a woman does not have a partial abortion and he is willing, with a straight face, to say this in a court of law then he will be able to conduct that abortion without any fear of going to jail. We can trust in the unwritten law of common sense.