While studying for the GRE the day before I take it (great idea, right?) I notice that it’s basically one big, ol’ philosophy exam. And I give you exhibit A:

This page contains the Argument topics for the analytical writing section of the GRE General Test. When you take the test, you will be presented with one Argument topic from this pool.

The wording of some topics in the test might vary slightly from what is presented here. Therefore, read your test topic carefully and respond to the wording as it appears in the actual test.

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.

A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease–preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.

And exhibit B:

Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views. Here are questions that may  be on the test:

“Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time.

“Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways.”

“Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.”

“The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each.”

Thank you every philosophy class I ever took for giving me the tools to get at least a 550 on my verbal practice exam without even studying.*

*too bad a 550 means rejection letters.

Peter Paul Rubens, "Saturn Devouring His Son," 1636

Today, Dec. 23rd, marks the last day of Saturnalia, the anarchical weeklong Roman feast held in the honor of the divine patriarch Saturn, counterpart to the Greek god Cronus. According to Hesiod, Cronus overthrew and castrated his father the sky-king Uranus with a scythe, and cast him into the Grecian hell-dimension Tatarus. To safeguard his own rule, Cronus devored each of his children as they were born by his wife-sister, Rhea. (See above.)  (Below the fold is another painting of the scene of Saturn/Cronus devouring one of his divine children. I didn’t put it above the fold becavse a.) it’s rather more famous than the above piece, and in my artistic postings I hope to proliferate works my readers probably haven’t seen, b.) it’s rather more gory, and c.) Reuben’s painting better emphasizes the fact that the Romans worshiped a baby-eating hell-god.)

No, no, it's "baby-eating hell-god," not "brain-eating hell-god."

Eventually, Rhea managed to sneak away her youngest child, Zeus, and replaced him with a rock in swaddling clothes to be devoured by Cronus. After reaching adulthood, Zeus returned to Olympus, cut open his father thus freeing his five immortal siblings, who together overpowered Cronus and cast him into Tatarus.

The Italians, however, took a rather more sympathetic view of Cronus-Saturn. In his capacity as the god of time, he was also the genius of seasons, and therefore of harvests. So Saturn’s holiday, originally introduced as a national morale-booster after a military defeat ca. 217 BCE, became the official Roman celebration of the winter solstice, and unofficial week of revelry. Great feasts were held, gifts and exchanged, and all manner of jests performed. Slaves were “freed” for the week, and often play-acted with role-reversal with their masters to hilarity. Saturnalia was so popular with the Roman populace that the poet Catullus described it as “the best of days.” Efforts to shorten the weeklong celebration on two occassions by the emperors Augustus and Gaius Germanicus (“Caligula”) were met with riots. 

Fransico Goya, "Saturn Devouring His Son," 1819-1823

Via The Guardian:

Jewish leaders from around the world expressed their outrage today after the Pope opened the way for his controversial wartime predecessor to be made a saint, with some calling the possible beatification of Pius XII as “inopportune and premature”.

Benedict signed a decree last Saturday on the virtues of Pius, who has been criticised for not doing enough to stop the Holocaust. The decree means he can be beatified once a miracle attributed to him has been recognised. Beatification is the first major step towards sainthood. But Benedict, who has long admired Pius, continues to draw fire for ignoring concerns over the controversial pontiff. Among those to criticise him was the World Jewish Congress, whose president, Ronald Lauder, said: “As long as the archives about the crucial period 1939 to 1945 remain closed, and until a consensus on his actions ‑ or inaction ‑ concerning the persecution of millions of Jews in the Holocaust is established, a beatification is inopportune and premature.

“While it is entirely a matter for the Catholic church to decide on whom religious honours are bestowed, there are strong concerns about Pius XII’s political role during world war two which should not be ignored.”

…

He called on the Vatican to immediately open the files on the controversial figure. “Given the importance of good relations between Catholics and the Jews, and following the difficult events of the past year, it would be appreciated if the Vatican showed more sensitivity on this matter,” he added, referring to Benedict’s rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying cleric, Richard Williamson.

Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XXII, hereafter “Pacelli”) is already afforded the title “Venerable.”  Throughout WWII, he enforced a policy of neutrality, following a precedent set by Giacomo Chiesa (aka Pope Benedict XV) during WWI. (Specifically, during the fascist era and WWII, Pacelli made numerous token remarks condemning anti-Semitism, but declined to comment on specific Nazi policies, pogroms, and camps.) Apologists say this compromise was prudentially necessary, given that the Vatican and the head of church infrastructure was situated within Fascist Italy. Opponents argue that Pacelli failed in his capacity as a purveyor of morals and human being to make heaviest sacrifices in openly opposing the most brutal regimes of the 20th century.

As noted in the Guardian article,

The Vatican argues that Pius worked quietly behind the scenes because direct interventions might have worsened the situation for Jews and Catholics in Europe. It is a position many Jews have rejected.

Though some pleas were answered, Pacelli did refuse many for various stated reasons. Some critics argued a significant degree of the support he did proffer was extended under pressure. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes

Historians point out that any support the Pope did give the Jews came after 1942, once U.S. officials told him that the allies wanted total victory, and it became likely that they would get it. Furthering the notion that any intervention by Pius XII was based on practical advantage rather than moral inclination is the fact that in late 1942, Pius XII began to advise the German and Hungarian bishops that it would be to their ultimate political advantage to go on record as speaking out against the massacre of the Jews. ⁽²⁷⁾ One of the only cases in which the Pope gave early support to the allies was in May 1940. He received information about a German plan, Operation Yellow, to lay mines to deter British naval support of Holland. Pius XII gave his permission to send coded radio messages warning papal nuncios in Brussels and The Hague of the plot. The German radio monitoring services decoded the broadcast and went ahead with the plan.⁽²⁸⁾ This papal intervention is surprising due to the Pope’s persistent claim of neutrality, and his silence regarding almost all German atrocities.

My account of the debate is by no means comprehensive–I barely begin at exposition, and invite our readers to continue it in the comments. But I’ll end my commentary here:

Pacelli’s legacy is genuinely controversial–and by that I mean there is genuine room for disagreement in reasonable persons looking at the same evidence. But as noted in the article, that evidence is woefully incomplete. Reams of WWII-era Vatican records are sealed. Though their opening would probably not resolve every question with finality, it would certainly help clear muddied waters; and it is certainly easy to read guilt into the decision to keep them locked. Without giving the public the opportunity to review the Pacelli’s complete record, Ratzinger is asking the world to take a lot on faith in regards to the former pontiff’s merits. And claiming the 260th pontiff’s legacy is so pristine he is deserving of sainthood, it makes Benedict seem hopelessly out of touch with millions’ legitimate frustrations with Pacelli’s actions and inaction. Especially after Williamson, it brings Ratzinger’s sincerity in regards to mending rifts with international Jewish communities into question.

Via the AP:

Mexico City on Monday became Latin America’s first municipality to approve gay marriage, an aide to a city lawmaker told AFP.

“It was approved overall by 39 votes in favor and 20 against, with five abstentions,” said a spokesman for the bill’s chief sponsor, assemblyman Davi Razu.

Spokesman Oscar Oliver said city legislators were now taking up a measure in the bill that would allow married same-sex couples to adopt children. The new measure modified a civil union law already on the books in Mexico City, as in other Latin American nations including Uruguay and Colombia. In Argentina the Supreme Court is to rule on a court-approved gay marriage that was challenged earlier this month.

Hopefully, wedded bliss will afford some couples momentary distracton from the constant terror of a “low intensity civil war” between the drug cartels and lawless military.

Via the Independent:

Hundreds of British schoolgirls are facing the terrifying prospect of female genital mutilation (FGM) over the Christmas holidays as experts warn the practice continues to flourish across the country. Parents typically take their daughters back to their country of origin for FGM during school holidays, but The Independent on Sunday has been told that “cutters” are being flown to the UK to carry out the mutilation at “parties” involving up to 20 girls to save money.

 The police face growing criticism for failing to prosecute a single person for carrying out FGM in 25 years; new legislation from 2003 which prohibits taking a girl overseas for FGM has also failed to secure a conviction.

Experts say the lack of convictions, combined with the Government’s failure to invest enough money in education and prevention strategies, mean the practice continues to thrive. Knowledge of the health risks and of the legislation remains patchy among practising communities, while beliefs about the supposed benefits for girls remain firm, according to research by the Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development (Forward).

As a result, specialist doctors and midwives are struggling to cope with increasing numbers of women suffering from long-term health problems, including complications during pregnancy and childbirth.

Campaigners are urging ministers to take co-ordinated steps to work with communities here and overseas to change deep-seated cultural attitudes and stamp out this extreme form of violence against women.

The author and life peer Ruth Rendell, who has campaigned against FGM for 10 years, said: “When I helped take the Bill through Parliament seven years ago, I was very hopeful that we’d get convictions and that would then act as a deterrent for other people. But that has never happened and my heart bleeds for these girls. This mutilation is forever; nothing can be done to restore the clitoris, and that is just very sad for them. I have repeatedly asked questions of ministers from all departments about why there has never been a prosecution and why we still do not have a register of cases. But while they are always very sympathetic, nothing ever seems to get done. Teachers must not be squeamish and must talk to their girls so we can try and prevent it from happening.”

An estimated 70,000 women living in the UK have undergone FGM, and 20,000 girls remain at risk, according to Forward.

What the shit? ABC news reports that:

The law — which some lawmakers say was never debated in parliament — is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan’s Shiite community, which makes up about 20 percent of this country of 30 million people. The law does not affect Afghan Sunnis.

One of the most controversial articles stipulates the wife “is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires.”

“As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night,” Article 132 of the law says. “Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”

Sayed Hossain Alemi Balkhi, a Shiite lawmaker involved in drafting it, defended the legislation saying it gives more rights to women than even Britain or the United States does. He said the law makes women safer and ensures the husband is obliged to provide for her.

Alemi Balkhi is right, the law does give women more rights. The right to be raped.  I’m glad to be deprived of that right.

A talk by neuroscientist and primatologist Robert Sapolsky on humanity and the antecedents of humanity in inhumanity (beginning at the five-minute mark):

Via AP:

 A senior BBC executive apologized Thursday for hosting an online debate over whether gays should face capital punishment in Uganda. The broadcaster drew criticism from some lawmakers and users for the discussion forum, which ran under the headline: “Should homosexuals face execution?”

BBC’s “Africa Have Your Say” Web site asked for people’s views on a proposed Ugandan law that would punish some homosexual acts by life imprisonment or death. The African country’s parliament is also considering rules that could jail family and friends for up to seven years if they fail to report their homosexuality to authorities. Critics complained Wednesday that the debate was sensationalist and inappropriate. Lynne Featherstone, an opposition lawmaker with the Liberal Democrats, said she was deeply offended that the BBC thought it legitimate to debate killing gays. BBC World Service director Peter Horrocks wrote in a blog posted on the broadcaster’s Web site: “We apologize for any offense it caused.”

He said the headline was too stark in hindsight. Editors had changed it to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?” after they closed down the debate. He added, however, that the program was a legitimate and responsible attempt to encourage discussion about a crucial African issue. The program provided “a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond,” he wrote.