I am a huge fan of xkcd.com and I just had to post this comic because of how much it resonates with me.
“The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there’s no good reason to go into space–each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.”
Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
Most people know of “Robin Hood” and his ethical system of “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.” This might appear to be driven from an economic motive. However, I would like to look at a broader take on his moral philosophy. Robin Hood views a moral obligation, namely the helping of the poor, as more important than the civil law, namely stealing. He makes a decision that although his actions are against the law, the law is subject to something greater. I have to confess that I always thought Robin Hood was exciting. His band of merry men in the forest thieving and always one-upping the sheriff seemed right. He was the underdog fighting for good, even though the authorities called it wrong.
This is the same dilemma that makes for many great movie or book narratives. “Harry Potter” is an example of a group of kids (later teenagers) who are always told to do one thing by the authorities in their school. However, since they know what they should do- they ignore the authority and do the right thing anyway. Luckily for Harry, Hermione, and Ron things always turned out for the best. A final example that is brazenly anti-authority is “V for Vendetta.” This movie is about a freedom fighter in a 1984-esque Britain. He resorts to terrorism and crime in the name of justice. The underlying tone clearly being that right and wrong are decided not by judges or by people- rather it is objectively true no matter the law.
This makes for a great story- but causes trouble when applied to real situations. How should people act, in accordance with the law or what they believe to be right? I can think of a handful of issues that have recently been discussed in this manner. First, immigration and possible immigration reform. These immigrants are breaking the law by entering the 
country illegally. However, they are people who are simply trying to better themselves. Many people have taken the Robin Hood stance that the law can be broken to do “the right thing.” Second, is drug laws. There is growing resistance that the punishments are simply egregious compared to the crimes. People simply decide to ignore the law and act on their personal liberty. I could name homosexual marriage, abortion, etc. The question boils down to- does the law define our morality or does an objective morality define our law?
I hold that an objective morality defines our laws. This gives me the power to fight for change. I really worry about the position that many atheists have taken that morality is societally defined. If this is true, then they cannot fight for change. For example, if the law states that homosexual marriage is illegal- then our culture has defined it as immoral. It would then be morally wrong to fight for change. On the other hand, if you appeal to an objective morality as the basis of your laws. You have the grounds to fight for our laws to better match that morality. The power to fight for change is in your hands.
The Wall Street Journal posted today about the “sleepless elite.” These are a rare group of individuals who operate effectively on less than 6 hours of sleep each night. The WSJ describes these people as energetic, optimistic, and constantly in motion. Although almost 33% of the country believes themselves to be in this group only 1-3% actually are in the sleepless elite. It is believed that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and even Leonardo Da Vinci might fall into this group as well.
My Son (Elliott) Sleeping
As I read the post a question arose in my mind. Let me assume that less sleep allows a person to accomplish more during the day. Since this would seem to be advantageous- why does everyone and most animals still sleep? Shouldn’t those that do not sleep overtake those that do in a Darwinian battle of the most awake? There must be an innate advantage to sleep that has allowed it to so vastly prolific within the animal kingdom. So I hopped into my google-saddle and did some research. It turns out that sleep is a pretty big mystery. (Should have seen that coming) But- there are some major benefits that might explain why it is so common.
An example of a major benefit is that sleep aids in memorization. I listened to the “sleep” episode of the Radiolab podcast about this specific topic. It explained that when we try to memorize material – mentally such as flashcards or physically such as music – we can hit a wall after a certain period of time. We can get frustrated because he have hit an apparent limit for the day. Many times friends or family tell us to “sleep on it” and come back in the morning. This turns out to be good advice! The reason is that during the night our brains send out brain waves that wash over all the events of the day. The areas that you focused on are highlighted and basically packed away into longterm storage. When we get up in the morning, the things that we were working on yesterday are now ingrained. We are ready to continue to learn. This doesn’t explain sleep- but it is a positive effect that it has on us.
Another possibility is that sleep is a method of conserving energy and resources. Much like hibernating- we require less food and water than if we were awake constantly. (On a side note- I find it very interesting that animals that are hibernating come out of hibernation to sleep. They still require sleep even though they are hibernating.) If this is the case then maybe the modern world’s advancements in food production will be a catalyst to lower the need for sleep.
Anyway- I know that I am not in the sleepless elite so I think I am going to go take a nap. 
This previous Wednesday (March 30, 2011), William Lane Craig debated Lawrence Krauss at North Carolina State University. The topic of the debate was slightly unusual- “Is there evidence for God?” Typically these debates swirl around sufficient evidence or is the evidence rational. Also at first glance, as Krauss mentioned, evidence as a concept is the realm of science. If this is the case then Craig would have been at the disadvantage. However, I think it was clear from the debate that philosophy is so all encompassing that Craig had the upper hand throughout the event.
William Lane Craig
To begin, Craig laid out his definition of evidence. Evidence for God is an item that adjusts the probability of the existence of God to a higher value than without it. Simply put- does the information that Craig presents increase the probability of God’s existence. Craig brought forth 5 items that he considered good evidence for God. The Cosmological Arguments (Kalam and Leibniz), the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Moral Argument, and the Resurrection of Jesus.
Krauss responded initially with two shocking claims (one of which he later retracted). First, that Craig’s arguments were nothing more than God-of-the-gaps. I was really surprised by this primarily because Craig uses syllogisms to prove his point! He is not covering up holes- rather he is pointing to his arguments as solid. Second, Krauss claimed that quantum physics does not conform to the laws of logic. He later corrected himself (sort of). However, this is where it became clear that Krauss was not trained in the accuracy of philosophy. Krauss clearly did not understand what was meant by the laws of logic. I think he simply thought that it was the expected or norm. I believe this was his intention because he many times mentioned that just because science is unbelievable does not mean we need to reach for God. It seemed to me that Krauss was simply out of his element.
Lawrence Krauss
Craig’s rebuttal was an attempt to refocus the debate to the question at hand. He pushed Krauss on whether or not his five items actually constituted as evidence. He also probed at the resurrection of Jesus because it was not addressed by Krauss at all.
Krauss response seemed uncomfortable at this point. He started a string of strange claims that were clearly false or simply sloppy communication. For example, Krauss stated that “something must come from nothing.” However he clearly does not use a philosophical term for nothing. His nothing is filled with energy, the laws of physics, etc. There is a vast miscommunication when Krauss is saying “nothing” but meaning something. Craig pointed out that Krauss was misusing his terminology. Craig in response became more pointed stating “being does not come from non-being.”
Krauss also employed the concept of an infinite multi-verse as the reasoning for fine tuning, our existence, etc. The problem is that later Krauss stated that contingent beings must have always existed because of the infinite multi-verse. This is in response to the Leibniz Cosmological Argument. However, Krauss simply did not understand the definition of contingent.
I saw Craig as the clear winner. Obviously, I agree with his positions- but I think that Craig was well organized and had a fairly easy position to defend. Prior to the debate I couldn’t imagine what types of arguments Krauss would come up with- and it turned out he couldn’t imagine any either.
A Cave in Jordan
The BBC posted a news article yesterday of Christian relics found in a cave in Jordan. The relics are a set of books which were cast in lead and bound with lead rings. The origins of these books found have yet to be scientifically confirmed, primarily because there is a dispute over who actually owns the relics. You can read more about the issue in the original article if you want. Hopefully that tussle will end soon so study will continue! I simply wanted to note two items mentioned in the article that I found fascinating. The first is that the books were written in Hebrew. Similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, these would have originated from a Jewish group. The difference is that this find appears to be specifically Christian.
As mentioned in the article, “Philip Davies, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament Studies at Sheffield University, says the most powerful evidence for a Christian origin lies in plates cast into a picture map of the holy city of Jerusalem. ‘As soon as I saw that, I was dumbstruck. That struck me as so obviously a Christian image,’ he says. ‘There is a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books too and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem.’”
The second interesting thing to note is the possible dating of the relics. If the guesses are correct, these items would come from the period between the crucifixion and the writing of the Pauline epistles. That would hopefully illuminate the activity of the early Christian church during this time.
There is always the possibility that the items are never returned, turn out to be a hoax, etc. But if authenticated, this would be very exciting!
One of the major topics I have been studying this semester is the “problem of evil.” The primary interest to me in the problem is its connection to other issues about the nature of God. These issues interact and overlap with each other. Sometimes what seems like a reasonable premise in isolation does not rationally fit into a larger theodicy. This article is directed at one of those overlapping issues. Let’s start by assuming that gratuitous evil exists in the world. Then let’s make a second assumption that this world is the best of all possible worlds. These two assumptions might be able to be held in tandem. However, I claim that the concept of gratuitous evil conflicts with the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds if the number of possible worlds is considered to be only limited by logic. I believe that this is the case simply by the definition. Let me attempt to demonstrate why…
To begin, the assumptions that I started with must be unpacked to give a proper foundation on which to build the argument. The first assumption is that gratuitous evil exists in the world. Alan Rhoda in his article titled “Gratuitous evil and divine providence” attempts to build a comprehensive definition for gratuitous evil. Rhoda builds upon a premise from William Rowe’s argument from evil defining gratuitous evil as, “A token or type of evil which God antecedently knew He could have prevented in a way that would have made the world overall better.” The core meaning is that a gratuitous evil is an evil that does not serve a purpose. If the gratuitous evil had not occurred there would have been no loss of either- another good or prevention of another evil.
Gottfried Leibniz
The second assumption is that this is the best of all possible worlds. The position as articulated by Robert Adams in his article “Must God Create the Best?” is stated, “If the actual world was created by an omnipotent, perfectly good God, it must be the best of all logically possible worlds.” But what is a possible world? Ken Keathley defines a possible world as a part of God’s natural knowledge writing, “[God] knows all possibilities, everything that could happen. He knows what reality would be like if He had created a world without you or me in it, or never created anything or anyone at all. These fully formed possible scenarios are generally called possible worlds.” [Emphasis in original] This would mean that possible worlds are only limited by logic as mentioned by Adams. Thus, there is no possible world with a square circle but that is only limited because of the laws of logic. Another idea found within assumption two is that this is the best of all possible worlds. What is meant by best is that this world is the maximal plan in which God could enact. Gottfried Leibniz writes in his “Theodicy” that God must have chosen the best because, “there would be something to correct in the actions of God if it were possible to do better.” The word “best” can be taken to be the maximum or optimum amount of great qualities that could have been achieved.
So now let me explain why these two assumptions cannot be held in tandem when the definition of possible worlds is only limited by logic. The reasoning for this is as follows. Suppose that the current world, W, is the best possible world that God could have chosen. Also suppose that within this world a gratuitous evil occurs, E. However, it is logically possible that a world, W’, could exist identical to W except for a single change- E does not occur. This is because E by definition has no purpose that can lead to a greater good or prevention of evil within W. In this scenario, W’ is better than W since W’ contains less evil. This reasoning could occur for any instance of gratuitous evil within W. Therefore, the concept of gratuitous evil and the concept that this is the greatest of all possible worlds cannot reside in tandem if possibility is taken to mean only limited by logic. To resolve this issue, there are a number of possible fixes. One potential fix is to claim that W’ is not a feasible world. This would allow for a limiting factor to create a finite selection of worlds from which to pick. I think that it would be very hard to explain why W’ would not be a feasible world. But it is simply an option!
Anyway- just something to think about! I have been buried in books this semester but it has been the catalyst for a lot of intellectual stretching. I am definitely enjoying it!
Recently I interviewed a coworker who had gone through a stroke in 2002. It completely changed his life. Prior to the stroke Gary was an excellent guitar player, great at sports, and an “asshole.” The stroke changed all of those things. He was no longer able to get the sounds he wanted with the guitar. He now walks with a limp. Gary has also learned humility that can only come from an dramatic even such as this. I wanted to hear his story and ask how he defined the “self”. Here is part one-
Gary: It was totally surreal. I was standing in a grocery store and holding my left hand in my right hand. I’m not sure why but I kept thinking, “Who’s hand am I holding?” It was like that it wasn’t my hand. It was a weird feeling. But as I turned around to walk down the aisle I collapsed. Luckily I was with a friend who noticed that it was stroke and he held me down on the floor until an ambulance showed up. The whole time I was going through it I felt no pain whatsoever. Even for several hours, I can remember thinking that “I’m ok” – “I can get up.” But they kept telling me, “No you can’t” I kept thinking that I could. There was a slight memory lapse, maybe seven or eight hours, maybe even the next morning I woke up still thinking that I could function. But when I tried I couldn’t function, even though in my mind I could. It was…
Me: So you felt like you were fine, but when you tried to move it didn’t work?
Gary: …right, I realized I couldn’t. I was trying to take major steps toward getting on my feet. But the fact was I couldn’t even take my leg and move it out to touch the floor. I had to start with minimal things like moving my toes. And that was a total separation from being in my self- because I couldn’t just lay back and think about it to move. I had to actually look at my toes in order for them to respond. At first I had no response, like I was out of touch with that part of my body. But within the next few days I started being able to actually move my leg and toes. It took about two weeks before I got confidant enough to drag myself out of bed and fall down. I went through a long series of…
Me: hitting the ground?
Gary: Yea, I learned how to roll really good! I just got back up. The actual experience itself… well you know a lot of people ask me if it was painful, but there was no pain involved. They don’t know a lot about strokes. The doctors said I was young. And well… I was exposed to agent orange in Vietnam so it may have had something to do with that. I also smoke cigarettes which might have played a factor. But they really don’t know. As far as prolonged memory loss, I went through a bunch of cognitive and psychiatric tests. Everything turned out fine. It wasn’t until six years later that I found my first real mental problem.
…to be continued
A couple of days ago I had a dream. It goes like this-
I wake up one morning next to a random woman. Freaked out at this stranger sleeping next to me, I jump up and demand to know what happened to Deana (my wife). Puzzled, she looks at me and says, “I’m Deana!” I protest saying that she cannot be Deana! To prove my point, I ask her probing questions that only Deana should know. Strangely… she answers them correctly. It is at this point that I have an epistemological conundrum. I wonder if perhaps I have always perceived my wife incorrectly and I am simply seeing things different now. What is it that makes a person themselves? It cannot be simply looks or personality. I concede that this “stranger” must in fact be Deana. The twist in my dream is that the real Deana always shows up just as I concede exclaiming, “Who is this!?”
Although the dream is ridiculous it highlights a classic problem. What makes a person themselves? Where is the self stored?
This question is written about eloquently in Pascal’s Pensees. Pascal muses:
Blaise Pascal
…does someone who loves another because of her beauty really love her? No, because the smallpox, which will destroy beauty without destroying the person, will cause him to love her no more. And if someone loves me for my judgment, for my memory, does he love me, myself? No, because I can lose these qualities without losing myself. Where, then, is this self, if it is neither in the body nor in the soul? And how to love the body or the soul, except for its qualities that do not constitute the self, since they are perishable? For would we love the substance of a person’s soul in the abstract…?
I am not sure if there is a sense of permanent self without personality, character, and internal narrative. All of this can be lost. So maybe, self is not as permanent a notion as I would hope. It could be a transient attribute that really only finds existence in the now.
As an addendum, I would like to make a note as to why the transient self makes marriage something special. When I married my wife, Deana, I was in love with who she is. I found her attractive on many different levels! But marriage is more than commitment to another person. It is an office or position that I now hold as husband. If Deana’s personality changed, if her looks disappeared, and even if she loses our narrative (her memory)- I will stand with her! Notably, it would no longer be because of Deana but because of the office of husband and commitment to keep my promises. If the commitment is simply based on the other person, marriage can always fall apart. Just an observation!
I have been in the wilds at the end of this semester! I have one more final next week, but the worst is behind me. *whew*
Mono Lake Research Area
I wanted to jump back a few days to comment on some really exciting news. You might have read about NASA discovering a bacterium that can thrive on arsenic. The findings were released on December 2nd and I was floored! The official article notes that previously humans had only thought life could be based on six elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. However, the bacteria that NASA isolated could use the deadly poison arsenic as food. This discovery redefines what life can look like!
This is not the only news that has pointed towards the possibility of life in other parts of the universe. The sheer number of stars believed to exist has been estimated greater than previously imagined. An astronomer from Yale has changed the approximate number to 300 sextillion. That number boggles the mind. Combine this with astronomers agreeing now that a greater variety of planets can potentially support life. The general direction of astronomy has started to point towards life existing outside of the earth. The mainstream news has felt the vibe as well. The Associate Press posted today that evidence for ET is mounting. The article rightfully notes that searching for extraterrestrial life was on the fringes of science a few decades ago. It has since moved into the spotlight with repeated advances that reinforce the hypothesis that life exists elsewhere.
To be clear- this is only about life, not intelligent life. SETI, the primary player in the search for intelligent life, has been listening through radio telescopes for a sign that intelligence might be out in the stars. So far without much luck. Even so, I think that the possibilities are fascinating.
I have heard from Christians that intelligent life outside of the earth would pose a problem to their theology. However, I do not believe this to be the case. There is a desire in Christians (and most religions) to place man as a central player in the narrative of the cosmos. I think this is better described by noting that scripture focuses on its audience, mankind. It does not spend time on other parts of the universe or other lifeforms. For example, angels are mentioned in scripture yet discussion of God-Angel relationships (possible covenants?) are not expounded upon. We should keep a proper perspective and not make the Copernican mistake.
In a related note- the first commercial spacecraft is gearing up to launch! Maybe Santa can bring me a ticket to to the stars.
I have to give a 8 minute speech on torture next week. The topic I was given was whether or not torture is morally acceptable. Below is the manuscript for the speech- hopefully it will go well!
The Princess Bride - Torture Chamber
Torture is almost universally prohibited by countries across the globe. Worldwide religions such as the Roman Catholic Church not only denounce torture but have an official definition by which to judge the act. The United Nations as well as the Geneva Convention both include specific guidelines by which to determine torturous acts. With all this official documentation it might seem like a simple task to determine what an act of torture consists of. This turns out not to be the case. There is much debate over what torture actually is. Therefore this presentation will begin by establishing a working definition that will be used to then handle deeper topics such as torture’s moral permissibility. After a definition is in hand there is a stream of questions that need to be addressed to confront its permissibility. First, does torture even work? There are many people who say that it is ineffective and therefore not permissible on simply pragmatic reasons. Secondly, if torture does work are there cases where it might be necessary to save lives? This is typically a core issue since the realm of permissibility greatly expands when human lives are on the line. Lastly the primary question can be addressed, is torture morally permissible? This presentation will argue that torture as defined by the United Nations and the United States are never permissible.
The most common core definition of torture can be found in the United Nations Convention Against Torture. It reads that torture is, “…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person…” It then lists the three primary reasons in which torture might occur. These include for the sake of punishment, to garner information (e.g. interrogation), and from discrimination or hate crimes. It should be clear that severe and unnecessary pain and suffering for these three reasons are to be avoided. However, the definition surely does not prohibit punishment for wrongdoing- only severe punishment. That leads to ambiguity over when a punishment becomes severe. Notice issues over rightful punishment are foreseen so an escape clause is added as the last sentence where it reads, “It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.”[1] It is then left up to the interpreter as to whether a justified punishment has simply gone too far. This appears to create a subjective lens that looks at the motive of the punishment rather than the action itself. This is also true of actions taken during interrogation. The Government will always take measures to gain important and possibly life saving information from criminal detainees. The question resides on when the actions goes too far. For this reason, perhaps torture could be defined simply as violence without restraint. It is a form of justice that lacks self-control. It is also a vague realm where we must determine intentions and motive. To be clear, this definition would not work for torture out of spite which is the third category from earlier which would include serial killers. However, since this type of torture is universally abhorred it will not be discussed.
With that definition in hand, lets step back and address the first question. Does torture ever work? Although it is true that torture is not typically as effective as usually interrogation techniques, it clearly works in certain circumstances. In the book Red Orchestra, Anne Nelson chronicles the history of an underground resistance group in Nazi Germany. When these men were captured and subsequently tortured, some of them confessed and therefore implicated others. This is poignantly clear since at least one man committed suicide to ensure that he wouldn’t out his colleagues. Nelson wrote that his death to prevent torture is believed to save many lives.[2] As similar story during the same time period comes from Barry Gewen. He writes that during French Resistance to Hitler, the members of the resistance were charged with holding out during torture for 48 hours. This would make sure than any information they did spill would be worthless.[3] This is also true of modern countries and their secret services. We train men to resist torture because torture works.
Since torture works, let’s address the next question: are there cases in which torture might be necessary? The classic necessary example that is found in most texts on torture is the ticking bomb scenario. It is basically this: A person runs into the oval office and tells the president of an urgent terrorist event taking place. The CIA has reason to believe that a nuclear bomb has been planted in Manhattan. The CIA has also detained the man who they believe placed the device. There is only a matter of minutes or hours before millions of lives could be lost. What should the president do? Barry Gewen’s essay on the ambiguity of terror states, “…it’s probably the case that any president—whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama—confronted with such a choice would approve the use of torture rather than risk a catastrophe.”[4] These are the one-off scenarios in which the definition of what constitutes torture changes to take into account the context. Remember that torture is defined by doing what is unnecessary or being too severe. In cases such as this, an act that is torture during peace time becomes necessary interrogation when lives are on the line.
This is not simply a hypothetical scenario. In 2003, Khalid Mohammed was captured. He was one of the head terrorists that plotted against the September 11th attacks. Officials interrogating him were having no success but realized that time was of the essence. This was intensified when he answered questions, “soon you will know.” It was at this point that methods normally labeled torture were used.[5] Barry Gewen explains, “Over a period of several weeks, he was kept naked, shackled, and isolated, deprived of sleep for up to seven and a half days at a time, and subjected to waterboarding one hundred and eighty-three times. Eventually, he opened up, revealing alleged plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, poison reservoirs, detonate dirty bombs, and spread anthrax.”[6] This potentially saved thousands of lives.
Torture Rack
Since torture works and it is sometimes necessary the main question can be addressed. Is torture morally permissible? The American people are divided over this issue. “Slightly more than half of all Americans believe torture should be prohibited during the U.S. war on terror; slightly less than half believe it should not.”[7] This is either an ideological split or simply confusion over what torture constitutes. This split is made more confusing by the Convention Against Torture, or CAT, which the United States adopted in 1984 and went into effect in 1987.[8] It required that we ban torture comprehensively, with no exceptions or extenuations. But wait- if the U.S. banned torture in 1994 how did it interrogate Khalid Mohammed in 2003? The answer to that can be found in the original problem- what we actually label as torture. When do interrogation techniques become so harsh that they cross the line and become torture, and therefore illegal? Typically, there is consensus on actions that cause long term damage to a person. These include genital mutilation, drilling holes through teeth, or cutting off parts of the body. But consider shouting at a suspect, shaking, slapping, playing loud music, and Solitary confinement. These are potentially acceptable according to the circumstances. There are, in fact, no clear answers except at the extremes. That is why during the post-9/11 turmoil surrounding torture the CIA lawyers said that torture was “subject to perception.” That is also why, when the United States ratified the CAT, it slightly changed the definition of torture from the United Nations version by limiting it to only those methods that, under the Constitution, “shocked the conscience.” Thus the actions falling in the United Nations or the United States definition of torture are simply not permissible. These were mentioned earlier, but constitute long term damage to a person’s body. Mutilation and scarring is beyond the realm of simple interrogation. These are uniformly categorized as torture and strictly denounced by United States law. In situations such as the ticking bomb scenario, the actions that are taken to save the lives of people are not actually torture because it is warranted and is not a “severe” act due to the context in which it is being preformed. Much like Abraham Lincoln when he temporarily suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned thousands of men without due process during the civil war- the line can shift to accommodate certain reasonable actions during extreme times.[9]
[2] Anne Nelson, Red Orchestra: The Story of the Berlin Underground and the Circle of Friends Who Resisted Hitler . New York: Random House, 2007.
[3] Barry Gewen, “The Grey Zone: Defining Torture.” World Affairs, 2010: 49-60.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program.
[6] Gewen.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Jay Goodliffe and Darren G Hawkins, “Explaining Commitment: States and the Convention against Torture.” The Journal of Politics, 2006: 358-71.
[9] Brian Dirck, “Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief.” Perspectives on Political Science, 2010: 20-7.
