Shoutout to the motherland

128 years ago today‚ Feng Youlan was born. This Chinese academic and philosopher was instrumental in reintroducing the Chinese classics of philosophy to the world. Critically for this form of Intangible World Heritage‚ as UNESCO describes it‚ he did so during a time of enormous upheavel‚ stretching from the fall of the imperial Qing Dynasty […] The post Good News in History‚ December 4 appeared first on Good News Network.

The children’s books on this list are about as far from Goodnight‚ Moon as you can get. Forget cozy tales of friendly animals and gentle life lessons. Today‚ we’re exploring a few books that are unsettling at best. The themes they explore go way beyond spooky tales. These narratives touch on complex emotions‚ existential questions‚ […] The post Ten of the Most Disturbing Children’s Books appeared first on Listverse.

If you have been on the internet in the past few months‚ you have probably seen the horror stories of bedbug infestations. These little bloodsuckers invade a house and scurry away into every corner of your home before coming out at night to slurp up your blood. Reading about them is enough to make your […] The post 10 Animals with a Taste for Blood appeared first on Listverse.

The following is an excerpt from presidential historian Craig Shirley’s forthcoming book “The Search for Reagan: The Appealing Intellectual Conservatism of Ronald Reagan‚” to be published in February. It recounts the thinking that went into President Reagan’s 1981 selection of Sandra Day O’Connor to be the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court. O’Connor‚ who served on the court until 2006‚ died Friday at the age of 93. During the 1980 campaign‚ Ronald Reagan was advised to make an appeal for the women’s vote by pledging to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court if elected.  It seemed like it was one of those campaign throwaway lines that every political operation goes through‚ but Reagan took this one seriously.  In the 200-year history of the court‚ there had never been a woman on the bench‚ but the court did make a lot of landmark decisions without their presence‚ including Marbury v. Madison‚ the Dred Scott case‚ Roe v. Wade‚ Plessy v. Ferguson‚ and significant civil rights and personal rights decisions. Reagan usually eschewed these silly campaign stunts‚ seeing them as offensive to his intellect‚ but this one intrigued him. … This decision was months in the making. According to Reagan campaign aide Stu Spencer‚ the concept occurred at a meeting with progressive Republican leaders in Massachusetts. They were displeased by Reagan’s opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment‚ but weren’t willing to write off the Gipper just yet.  GOP Rep. Margaret Heckler asked Reagan if he would consider appointing a woman to America’s highest court‚ and Reagan “appeared receptive” to the idea. The topic was reintroduced to Reagan in October when Spencer asked him‚ “Do you have any problem appointing a woman to the Supreme Court?” Reagan replied‚ “Hell‚ no. Not if she’s qualified.”  The announcement was immediately met with skepticism and criticism from the press and Democrats. Reporters immediately grilled Reagan on whether or not the candidate would share Reagan’s opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. President Jimmy Carter was similarly dismissive‚ stating‚ “Equal rights for women involves more than just one job for one woman.” Carter would even go on to assert that it was wrong to reserve court seats “for a particular kind of American.” …  Interestingly enough‚ when Reagan made his pledge to pick a woman for the Supreme Court‚ he didn’t say his first choice would be a woman. What he said was “one of my first choices” would be a woman.  Reagan may have been slow to master the art of politicking‚ but he had learned enough by 1980 to always leave himself a little wiggle room. Thus‚ should a seat on the court open up‚ Reagan was under no real obligation to fill it with a woman. While he would undoubtedly be criticized for not doing so‚ he would not technically be violating his campaign promise. Yet‚ to Reagan’s credit‚ he abhorred this type of political doublespeak‚ especially when he was forced to use it. He had no intention of reneging on his promise.  Reagan later wrote in his autobiography that within “the first few months” of his administration‚ he tasked his office to find the most qualified women in the country to choose from. Reagan noted that this search began “long before” a vacancy opened up.  On June 18‚ 1981‚ associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart announced he would be retiring from the court the following month. The career lawyer‚ judge‚ and legal scholar had served on the court since 1954‚ when he was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  Much to Eisenhower’s ire‚ Stewart ended up a swing vote judge for much of his tenure. He had voted along with the majority in the court’s landmark 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade. He was largely remembered for an opinion in which he wrote that‚ when it came to what is and isn’t pornography‚ “I know it when I see it.” He would later lament the popularity of the quote‚ fearing its pragmatic implications overshadowed his actual judicial philosophy.  With [Stewart’s] retirement‚ it now fell to Reagan to select his successor. Reagan ideally wanted a judge with originalist leanings that would be in line with his own. However‚ he had no illusions that his selection would always vote alongside the president‚ so this was not his primary concern. He later wrote: I knew that judges had a way of going their own way once they were sitting on the bench. Dwight Eisenhower once told me he believed that the biggest mistake he had made as president was appointing Earl Warren as chief justice of the Supreme Court because‚ in Ike’s view‚ Warren had changed his stripes and turned into a liberal who took it upon himself to rewrite the Constitution. I’d had a similar experience with one of my appointments in California. Even though you couldn’t always be certain how the judges you appointed would act once they put on black robes‚ I intended to do my best to choose the most responsible and politically neutral jurists I could find. Reagan didn’t want the decision to be politicized in any way.  “The only litmus test I wanted‚ I said‚ was the assurance of a judge’s honesty and judicial integrity. … I wanted judges who would interpret the Constitution‚ not try to rewrite it.” Like Reagan‚ Sandra Day (O’Connor later by marriage)‚ came from a hardscrabble background. She was the daughter of the largest and most successful ranch owners in her part of Arizona. Yet the ranch lacked running water or electricity for much of her youth.  As she spent her childhood branding cattle and repairing farm equipment‚ the courts‚ much less the Supreme Court‚ were the farthest thing from her mind. Though a bright young girl‚ educational opportunities were few and far between where she lived.  All things being equal‚ she would likely become a successful rancher in her own right. Yet‚ her parents were insistent she receive a quality education. They sent her to live with relatives who lived closer to better educational prospects.  As a student‚ O’Connor was a pioneer. At 16 years old‚ she enrolled at Stanford University as one of only a handful of women to make the cut‚ then continued at Stanford Law School. At this time‚ women made up only 2 percent of law school students. She was an editor of the prestigious Stanford Law Review and graduated third in her class.  Less well-known‚ she also likely set another record by rejecting no less than four marriage proposals while in law school‚ including one by future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.  Despite these high marks‚ most offices flatly refused to hire a woman‚ leaving her relegated to low-paying positions where her skills were deeply underutilized.  Despite these barriers‚ she persisted‚ and‚ in 1979‚ she was elevated to the Arizona Court of Appeals where her judicial record and strong reputation later caught the attention of Reagan’s team. In total‚ Reagan’s aides had selected 25 potential nominees‚ and she had made the final five.  Critically‚ on the “final five” list created by Reagan’s Deputy White House Chief of Staff Michael K. Deaver‚ O’Connor was one of only two women. The other three potential nominees were all men. Mr. Deaver shared this openly with reporters‚ which was odd. Letting the public know that Reagan was considering male candidates and‚ ergo‚ seemingly failing to follow through on his campaign promise could have easily backfired. Yet the exact opposite seemed to occur.  By signaling clearly that Reagan was also considering men‚ he made it explicitly clear that O’Connor was not selected because she was a woman—she was selected because she was the best.  Thus‚ on July 8‚ 1981‚ President Ronald Reagan announced that he would nominate Sandra Day O’Connor to be the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. In his announcement‚ he called O’Connor a “person for all seasons‚ possessing those unique qualities of temperament‚ fairness‚ intellectual capacity and devotion to the public good which have characterized the 101 ‘brethren’ who have preceded her.” The front page of the New York Times ran a large‚ favorable photo of her above the fold with the headline “A Reputation for Excelling: Sandra Day O’Connor.” The article was largely favorable‚ noting: “She is said‚ by friend and foe alike‚ to be notably bright‚ extremely hard-working‚ meticulous‚ deliberate‚ cautious and‚ above all‚ a Republican conservative.” An unnamed Arizona Democrat legislator noted she wasn’t “your far-out Republican … if you have to have a Republican on the court‚ well she’s about the best we could hope for‚ to be perfectly honest.” How magnanimous of him.  Despite those glowing reviews‚ another New York Times headline read: “Reagan Nominating Woman‚ An Arizona Appeals Judge‚ to Serve on Supreme Court: Reaction is Mixed.”  Surprisingly‚ it was not Democrats concerned with her judicial record‚ but fellow conservatives. Her previous openness to a more narrowly focused Equal Rights Amendment as well as her support for “a 1970 bill to legalize abortion and a 1973 bill permitting Arizona state agencies to participate in family planning” meant her confirmation was immediately opposed by the National Right to Life Committee‚ Moral Majority and other groups opposed to abortion. Nevertheless‚ Reagan went out of his way to assuage these concerns. While‚ in keeping with court tradition‚ she would not share opinions with the Senate or public that would undermine later court decisions‚ Reagan said that she had privately assured him that she was nominally against abortions.  In any case‚ despite opposition from some high-profile conservatives like Jerry Falwell‚ Reagan pressed forward with her nomination. After confirmation hearings that she would later describe as “unpleasant‚” she was swiftly confirmed with a unanimous 99 to 0 Senate vote. The cynic will point to cold‚ hard politics as the motivating factor behind President Reagan’s decision—that he wasn’t “winning” women over and needed something simple and performative to lure them into his camp. Similar statements have been made about President Joe Biden’s pledge to nominate the first black woman to the Supreme Court. Yet‚ when it comes to Reagan at least‚ it was about far more than math.  Reagan despised dividing America by race‚ gender‚ or creed. He preferred to speak to all Americans‚ yet that preference came at a cost. He knew he needed to show Americans that he was for all Americans. All good leaders must listen to those they lead. They need not always agree with them or do what they say‚ but people need to be heard.  When he listened in 1980‚ he heard that women were worried about his policies. They were worried he would lead America into a war‚ and they were worried he didn’t support women. So‚ Reagan evolved. When he discussed foreign policy‚ he tightened his messaging. No more off-the-cuff comments about blockades or troop deployments. He spoke of the great implications and greater evils of the Soviet Union while making it clear at every turn that the only guarantee for a peaceful America was a strong America. The same held true for women’s rights. Unlike Reagan’s critics‚ he considered national security and financial prosperity just as much a women’s issue as it was a men’s issue. Yet‚ when it became clear that more had to be done‚ he did just that. He openly spoke of the challenges women faced and how his administration would seek to address them.  In 1980‚ Reagan won 46 percent of women voters. In 1984‚ he won 57 percent. At the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy‚ they invoke the words of O’Connor herself as to why Reagan nominated her and what it meant for the country. In her 2004 Stanford Commencement speech‚ she said: His decision was as much a surprise to me as it was to the nation as a whole. But Ronald Reagan knew that his decision wasn’t about Sandra Day O’Connor; it was about women everywhere. It was about a nation that was on its way to bridging a chasm between genders that had divided us for too long. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post How Reagan Chose O’Connor for Supreme Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After filing a lawsuit‚ a Catholic community of sisters in New York has won a victory for life and for privacy. In June 2022‚ New York passed a law allowing state officials to access pro-life pregnancy resource centers’ sensitive information. The state Department of Health was granted permission to investigate pro-life pregnancy centers via demanding access to information about the centers’ policies. The law was immediately concerning to the Sisters of Life because “It’s so important that they feel safe‚” Sister Maris Stella says‚ referring to the women they serve. (Photo: Courtesy of the Sisters of Life) Stella‚ vicar general of the Sisters of Life‚ says the community of nuns is dedicated to serving women facing unplanned pregnancies‚ and part of that service often involves having “sacred conversations with them‚ and we come to know their history‚ their hopes‚ their fears‚ their dreams.” To protect the nuns’ privacy and the privacy of the women they serve‚ the Sisters filed a lawsuit asking a federal court for an order to protect them from government investigation. In November‚ New York agreed to comply with the federal court order. Stella joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” with Mark Rienzi‚ president and CEO of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty‚ which litigated the case on the sisters’ behalf‚ to discuss the legal victory. Stella also offers her insights on the future of the pro-life movement. Listen to the podcast below: Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Nun Hails Legal Victory for Life‚ Privacy in Pro-Abortion State appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It seems like we have free will. Most of the time‚ we are the ones who choose what we eat‚ how we tie our shoelaces and what articles we read. However‚ the latest book by Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky‚ ‘Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will’‚ has been receiving a lot of media attention for arguing science shows this is an illusion. Sapolsky summarises the latest scientific research relevant to determinism: the idea that we’re causally “determined” to act as we do because of our histories – and couldn’t possibly act any other way. According to determinism‚ just as a rock that is dropped is determined to fall due to gravity‚ your neurons are determined to fire a certain way as a direct result of your environment‚ upbringing‚ hormones‚ genes‚ culture and myriad other factors outside your control. And this is true regardless of how “free” your choices seem to you. Sapolsky also says that because our behaviour is determined in this way‚ nobody is morally responsible for what they do. He believes while we can lock up murderers to keep others safe‚ they technically don’t deserve to be punished. This is quite a radical position. It’s worth asking why only 11% of philosophers agree with Sapolsky‚ compared with the 60% who think being causally determined is compatible with having free will and being morally responsible. Have these “compatibilists” failed to understand the science? Or has Sapolsky failed to understand free will? Is determinism incompatible with free will? “Free will” and “responsibility” can mean a variety of different things depending on how you approach them. Many people think of free will as having the ability to choose between alternatives. Determinism might seem to threaten this‚ because if we are causally determined then we lack any real choice between alternatives; we only ever make the choice we were always going to make. But there are counterexamples to this way of thinking. For instance‚ suppose when you started reading this article someone secretly locked your door for 10 seconds‚ preventing you from leaving the room during that time. You‚ however‚ had no desire to leave anyway because you wanted to keep reading – so you stayed where you are. Was your choice free? Many would argue even though you lacked the option to leave the room‚ this didn’t make your choice to stay unfree. Therefore‚ lacking alternatives isn’t what decides whether you lack free will. What matters instead is how the decision came about. The trouble with Sapolsky’s arguments‚ as free will expert John Martin Fischer explains‚ is he doesn’t actually present any argument for why his conception of free will is correct. He simply defines free will as being incompatible with determinism‚ assumes this absolves people of moral responsibility‚ and spends much of the book describing the many ways our behaviours are determined. His arguments can all be traced back to his definition of “free will”. Compatibilists believe humans are agents. We live lives with “meaning”‚ have an understanding of right and wrong‚ and act for moral reasons. This is enough to suggest most of us‚ most of the time‚ have a certain type of freedom and are responsible for our actions (and deserving of blame) – even if our behaviours are “determined”. Compatibilists would point out that being constrained by determinism isn’t the same as being constrained to a chair by a rope. Failing to save a drowning child because you were tied up is not the same as failing to save a drowning child because you were “determined” not to care about them. The former is an excuse. The latter is cause for condemnation. Incompatibilists must defend themselves better Some readers sympathetic to Sapolsky might feel unconvinced. They might say your decision to stay in the room‚ or ignore the child‚ was still caused by influences in your history that you didn’t control – and therefore you weren’t truly free to choose. However‚ this doesn’t prove that having alternatives or being “undetermined” is the only way we can count as having free will. Instead‚ it assumes they are. From the compatibilists’ point of view‚ this is cheating. Compatibilists and incompatibilists both agree that‚ given determinism is true‚ there is a sense in which you lack alternatives and could not do otherwise. However‚ incompatibilists will say you therefore lack free will‚ whereas compatibilists will say you still possess free will because that sense of “lacking alternatives” isn’t what undermines free will – and free will is something else entirely. They say as long as your actions came from you in a relevant way (even if “you” were “determined” by other things)‚ you count as having free will. When you’re tied up by a rope‚ the decision to not save the drowning child doesn’t come from you. But when you just don’t care about the child‚ it does. By another analogy‚ if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around‚ one person may say no auditory senses are present‚ so this is incompatible with sound existing. But another person may say even though no auditory senses are present‚ this is still compatible with sound existing because “sound” isn’t about auditory perception – it’s about vibrating atoms. Both agree nothing is heard‚ but disagree on what factors are relevant to determining the existence of “sound” in the first place. Sapolsky needs to show why his assumptions about what counts as free will are the ones relevant to moral responsibility. As philosopher Daniel Dennett once put it‚ we need to ask which “varieties of free will [are] worth wanting”. Free will isn’t a scientific question The point of this back and forth isn’t to show compatibilists are right. It is to highlight there’s a nuanced debate to engage with. Free will is a thorny issue. Showing nobody is responsible for what they do requires understanding and engaging with all the positions on offer. Sapolsky doesn’t do this. Sapolsky’s broader mistake seems to be assuming his questions are purely scientific: answered by looking just at what the science says. While science is relevant‚ we first need some idea of what free will is (which is a metaphysical question) and how it relates to moral responsibility (a normative question). This is something philosophers have been interrogating for a very long time. Interdisciplinary work is valuable and scientists are welcome to contribute to age-old philosophical questions. But unless they engage with existing arguments first‚ rather than picking a definition they like and attacking others for not meeting it‚ their claims will simply be confused. Adam Piovarchy‚ Research Associate‚ Institute for Ethics and Society‚ University of Notre Dame Australia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Stanford professor says science shows free will doesn’t exist appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Siaka Massaquoi‚ RedState Columnist and LA County GOP Official‚ Arrested at Airport on J6 Misdemeanors

Digital "ownership" is not a thing. An unexpected notification released by Sony has raised eyebrows and sparked debates over digital ownership rights. The tech giant disclosed plans to erase hundreds of TV shows from Discovery‚ purchased via the PlayStation Store‚ from all PlayStation platforms. The sudden move has left many anticipating the shape of an increasingly digital world. Following licensing arrangements with content providers‚ Sony announced‚ “As of 31 December 2023‚ you will no longer be able to watch any of your previously purchased Discovery content and the content will be removed from your video library.” Alongside this sudden proclamation‚ a comprehensive list of Discovery shows due for removal was also shared – a list that was notably long. The exact reasons behind this controversial move remain unclear. Sony’s prior agreement with Discovery‚ blurring out after Discovery merged with Warner Bros last year‚ might offer an explanation. As uncertainty looms‚ the affected PlayStation users face the undesired news of losing out on their already-purchased digital content. This isn’t unfamiliar territory for Sony‚ the latest development is just another episode in a series of content removal from the PS Store and users’ purchase libraries.Alex Jones' latest bestselling book 'The Great Awakening' is NOW AVAILABLE! Secure your limited edition autographed today! Sweeping Plan for Global Censorship Exposed