So, I have sought numerous ways to increase the voices on the blog. Every post is conscientiously ended with a specific plea for Your Thoughts. Sometimes, I write fictional dialogues. Sometimes, I debate real people. Sometimes, I reply critically, line by line, to someone else’s writing. Sometimes, I interview interesting people. Sometimes, some other people interview me. Sometimes I invite guest posts. Sometimes I start a new post as a reply to readers’ comments or other bloggers’ comments made in reply to my previous posts.

Introducing “Philosophical Advice”

Now as a new feature, to further increase the back and forth between me and you, I want to do a philosophical advice column. I am not a trained psychologist by any means, so I cannot provide professional psychological counseling. But I am a professional philosopher who spends a great deal of time reading, thinking, teaching, and writing about ethics. I am deeply concerned with rational action that maximizes human good and, within my limitations and with no deluded presumptions to any more certainty or authority than the strengths of my arguments have to offer, I like giving people advice.

Sometimes we need advice from people who are not in our personal situation and who do not even know us personally, who can look at our problems from a fresh perspective for us and tell us what they see. While my perspective could never be the only valuable one you should be seeking out, I find people tend to think it unusual enough and thought provoking enough to be of at least some help in their coming to their own conclusions. And, luckily, if ever I am totally off the mark in my speculations and calculations, I have many hundreds of passionate, opinionated, articulate, well-educated, well-lived readers with expertise in any number of potentially relevant areas who will also be on-hand to correct me and help those writing in for help.

As the flood of mail that the sage friend of Camels With Hammers Richard Wade receives from readers attests. There is plenty of need out there for atheists willing to help other atheists figure out how to navigate their ethical, intellectual, and interpersonal lives. I want to help fulfill that role, in case anyone is interested.

Of course, if it turns out no one is, this column will quietly slink into oblivion.

For now if you have any sort of problem that you think some philosophical analysis might shed light on, send me an e-mail at my gmail account “camels with hammers” “@gmail”, etc., and on Fridays, assuming I have questions to answer, I will post the column “Philosophical Advice”. You can ask me anything and I may not get a lot of questions, so don’t be shy! All questions I publish will be posted strictly anonymously. I will change the names of any e-mails signed with real names. If I cannot answer your question myself because I judge it out of my depth, I will let you know, farm out your question to someone who can help me, and/or refer you to any sources I might know of which can be of help.

Finally, there may be an added twist to some of my replies. Sometimes, I feel torn myself about the advice to give, my fictional characters may debate the merits of alternative replies and leave it up to you to decide which is the shrewdest advice.

Top Q

In the beginning of 2011, as part of my quest to make the blog ever more dialectical, I intended to everyday write up a philosophical question for readers to answer. I called it the “TOP Q” which stood for “Today’s Open Philosophical Question”. Believe it or not, just writing good philosophical questions was often as time intensive for me as writing good philosophical answers. And, less surprisingly, the pace of a question a day combined with the relatively small size of my readership made it so that questions did not have enough time to breathe such that they could get enough good comments to justify being a daily feature. The comments I got were often excellent, but they were too few and too sporadic.

But now that there is a larger and steadier traffic coming through Camels With Hammers daily, I want to reintroduce the TOP Q with a new twist that will give each TOP Q more room to breathe and to develop a good dialectic among (hopefully) increasingly committed readers who are part of a (hopefully) increasingly cohesive community here at CWH. The new TOP Q will be a weekly feature, instead of a daily one. The phrase “TOP Q” will henceforth refer to either “Thursday’s Open Philosophical Question” or “Tuesday’s Open Philosophical Question” depending on the day I post it that week. So look out tomorrow for the first new TOP Q in almost exactly a year. I hope to sometimes float a topic in the TOP Q that I want to write on myself and to use your takes on the problem as stimulation for my own thinking and/or, where I already know pretty well what I think in advance, as an indication of where the focus in my eventual writing should be once I have a sense of readers’ general opinions, inclinations, and tensions between each other.

So, in the meantime, as I will be working all day and will not be able to blog much on that account, here are the previous TOP Q’s you might consider taking a crack at today:

TOP Q 1: “How, If At All, Can People’s Claims To Simply Intuit That There Is A God Be Rationally Refuted Or Supported?”

Top Q 2: “Is It Unfair To Call All Religions ‘Scams’?”

TOP Q 3: Can Virtues Conflict Or Must Every Truly Virtuous Action Be Approvable According To Every Other Virtue As Well?

TOP Q 4: What Obligations Is Someone Prominent Under When She Is Perceived To Speak For A Group?

TOP Q (5): Should Parents, On Behalf Of Their Children’s Interests, Get Extra Votes?

TOP Q (6): Why Should Pleasure And Pain Matter Morally?

TOP Q (7): Where Are The Lines Between Peaceable Death Penalty Advocacy And Criminal Incitement?

TOP Q (8): “Is It Unjust To Outlaw Schools, Even Private Religious Ones, From Teaching Religious Doctrines As Though True?”

TOP Q (9): “Do Children Have Higher Moral Status Than Adults?”

TOP Q (10): “How Is It Fair To Question Other People’s Identity-Forming Beliefs While Demanding Respect For One’s Own Belief-Formed Identities?”

Your Thoughts?

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

In July 2010, Martin Joel Erzinger, a hedge fund manager for extremely wealthy investors at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, was driving his car near Vail, Colorado, when he hit a bicyclist from behind and then sped away. The Vail Daily reported that the victim, Steven Milo, suffered “spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula,” which left him facing multiple surgeries. The newspaper’s account of the incident makes clear that Erzinger should have been prosecuted fro this event.

Milo was bicycling eastbound on Highway 6 just east of Miller Ranch Road, when Erzinger allegedly hit him with the black 2010 Mercedes Benz sedan he was driving. Erzinger fled the scene and was arrested later, police say. Erzinger allegedly veered onto the side of the road and hit Milo from behind. Milo was thrown to the pavement, while Erzinger struck a culvert and kept driving, according to court documents.

Erzinger drove all the way through Avon, the down roundabouts, under I-70 and stopped in the Pizza Hut parking lot where he called the Mercedes auto assistance service to report damage to his vehicle , and asked that his car be towed, records show. He did not ask for law enforcement assistance, according to court records.

Committing a hit and run is a felony in Colorado, and leaving the scene of a crime constitutes a felony as well. Nevertheless, the district attorney, Mark Hurlbert, announced that Erzinger would be charged only with a misdemeanor, which carries no jail time. Hulbert’s explanation for not charging Erzinger with any felonies was blunt: “Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession.”

In other words, Erzinger engages in such vital activity that charging him with a felony would be wrong because it might seriously disrupt his work: managing the money of mulitmillionaires and billionaires. According to Worth magazine, Erzinger “oversees over $1 billion in assets for ultra high net worth individuals and their families and foundations.” If he were charged with a felony he would be required to report that fact to licensing agencies; a felony conviction could result in his fund manager license being rescinded. Apparently, as far as the district attorney was concerned, it would be terribly unfair to subject someone like Erzinger to the risk of damaging his career, though presumably someone with less to lose could—and would—be charged as a felon without any such worries.

A petition signed by more than ten thousand local citizens demanding Erzinger be prosecuted was ignored. In similarly outrageous double standard logic that judges that criminal consequences are just too onerous to be applied to white collar criminals, Richard Cohen from The Washington Post inveighed against the prospect of Scooter Libby suffering for being convicted of obstruction of justice and against Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for doing his job and demanding information from journalists:

Cohen went on to chastise Fitzgeral for having been unfairly harsh in his investigation, especially for terrifying the famous journalists whom he subpoenaed to testify. Cohen protested: As any prosecutor konws—and Martha Stewart can attest—white-collar types tend to have a morbid fear of jail.” of course, blue-collar types, and poorer ones still, do not mind prison at all. Why would they? It’s their natural habitat, where they belong. Prison is for people like them.

Under this view, law is needed to control and constrain the ignoble masses (that is, the powerless), who will otherwise spread chaos and disorder. But the noble among us need no constraints. Indeed, the opposite is true: society is better off if the most privileged are free to act without limits, for that will maximize the good they can produce for everyone.

In all the media outrage over the plight of poor Scooter Libby, that was the point all along. And the spirit of Cohen’s objection infuses the crusade for elite immunity in general. The real injustice is to consign the powerful to prison, even if they are guilty of crimes. There is a grave indignity to watching our vaunted political elite being dragged through criminal proceedings and threatened with jail time as though they were common criminals. How disruptive and disrespectful and demeaning it all is.

Finally, one more quote which sums up the thesis of the book most devestatingly:

In the United States, the lack of accountability for elites goes hand-in-hand with a lack of mercy for everyone else. As our politicans increasingly claim the right to commit crimes with impunity, they simultaneously escalate the severity of punishments imposed on ordinary Americans who have broken even the most minor laws…Permissiveness for elites, by itself, is unjust enough. But at least if that leniency were available on an equal basis to everyone it might arguably be fair, and certainly less injurious to basic precepts of justice. It is the elites’ insistence on treating all others in precisely the opposite fashion from the way they treat themselves that is so pernicious.

The United States now imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in the world, both per capita and in absolute terms. The numbers are staggering. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet nearly 25% of all prisoners in the world are on American soil. “Simply put, we have become a nation of jailers,” writes the Brown University professor Glenn Loury. “The American prison system hsa grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history.”

Read Greenwald’s entire book and his indispensable blog for many more of the gory details of contemporary American injustice. And spread the word and think constructively about how, if at all, the system can possibly be fixed.

A couple years ago, when hardly anyone was reading Camels With Hammers, I wrote a post offering 9 philosophical speculations about why authoritarian attitudes are increasingly appealing to Americans (specifically as related to increased acceptance of torture and the police state). I think the thoughts there are evergreen and I’d love Your Thoughts on them if you have the time and interest and (especially) any relevant expertise on the relevant issues.

Finally, back to Greenwald, you can watch a very good interview with Democracy Now which overviews the themes and information in With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. Greenwald also gave an excellent video interview to Bill Moyers awhile back making the case against America’s perpetual war making.

Your Thoughts?

Robin: Because everything that exists needs an explanation and the universe is no exception.

Jaime: But then why doesn’t your god need an explanation? Aren’t we just headed for an infinite regress unless you just admit that something doesn’t need an explanation?

Robin: Well, yes, that’s exactly what I believe—that there is something which does not need an explanation, and that is God. 

Jaime: But a moment ago you said everything needs an explanation. But now it’s okay that your god doesn’t? You’re just changing the rules for your god.

Robin: No, the point is that something must not need an explanation but must exist of its own accord—but that cannot be anything from within our space-time since it cannot account for itself. So, it must be a being that exists outside our universe, and whatever that being is, is God. Metaphysically speaking, that’s all we can mean by God. All our inferences about God’s nature that don’t come from the Bible must come from the implications of the concept of this metaphysically self-causing being.

Jaime: Why not just say that the universe itself is eternal and self-explanatory? It’s simpler. That way there’s no need for a superfluous extra super-being with superpowers that cannot be accounted for. We just say the world we know just exists on the most basic level uncaused. Cause and effect relationships are meaningful for interactions by which the universe we know morphs itself into different arrangements of beings but the universe itself is eternal and not the kind of thing that gets caused into being as the effect of other agencies or events. Cause and effect are just confused categories for dealing with the origin of the universe itself in that case. They only apply to particular events within the basic eternal constituent features of the universe itself. Something must mysteriously exist with no further cause, so whatever it is, it’s just fundamental to the universe itself.

Robin: But the universe does not seem to be eternal since it has a beginning. So the eternality must be in something outside the universe.

Jaime: Well, just because we do not know what came before the big bang does not mean that in some sense the universe could not be part of a larger eternal multiverse or an eternal sequence of universes or that the universe cannot be eternally expanding with a big bang and then contracting with a big crunch and reexpanding with a big bang, etc. There are any number of plausible explanations of our universe being eternal or part of a larger eternal arrangement. At least these all involve dealing with the known, rather than positing an implausible super-being that just happens to have complex human traits like personhood in a supposedly simple and uncaused being. Everything we know about personhood is that it arises as a later, complex development. It is the result of natural selection processes and it is a functional operation that arises in beings who are composed of trillions of cells, each of which are made of something like 10^14 atoms! And the atoms are further composed of subatomic particles, etc., etc. To posit a simple, timeless, spaceless, eternally existing being which serves as a placeholder of “cause of the universe” is one thing. It’s a speculation which can be defended and challenged on any number of grounds, much like other speculations about fundamental metaphysics. But then to conceive of it as a person like us? That’s as implausible as saying numbers have personalities or that the most basic rudiments of existence, whatever they are, have personalities. Personalities are based on compositions of those basic building blocks of reality, it’s wholly unlikely they would exist on the most basic level of reality.

Robin: But the concept of a personal God is not incoherent. And neither is the positing of a timeless and spaceless being incoherent either. Numbers, for example, are timeless and spaceless. They are not created at any specific date. One might think propositions are too. Whether or not they are true or not may hinge on circumstances, but their meanings don’t seem to.

Jaime: But the problem is this, you say that your god is timeless and yet that the universe does not always exist. But for the universe to not always exist that means that your timeless god must have not created the universe at one moment and then at another moment created it. In which case, your god would be temporal after all—not creating one moment but then creating the next moment. Then you have a temporal being but you claim your god is timeless.

Robin: Well, no, God does not create at a moment, God is always timelessly performing the action of creating the universe all at once.

Jaime: So the universe is always existing, there with your god? So it has no beginning after all, it is eternal on your account!

Robin: But it is of finite duration. It has a beginning moment and a last moment. It is a finite set of moments, whereas God is timeless and not constrained to a set of finite moments.

Jaime: But it is existing eternally, even if it is limited to a finite number of moments? So you’re saying its temporality—its having moments—is compatible with its being eternal but before you said that its having a beginning and, so, presumably a finite number of moments, required it to not be eternal. But now your god can make the whole set of finite, temporal moments exist eternally. So why not say that some feature of, rather than one outside, the universe (or a multiverse) allows it to be eternal despite its also having a temporal beginning.

Robin: Because that makes no sense, if it has a beginning it starts being at some point in time, so it can’t be eternal.

Jaime: But you just claimed God is eternally creating it and it has a beginning point. So it is possible on your account.

Robin: It’s possible if some other being is causing it to both eternally be but to be limited to a finite set of moments in a way that an independently eternal being is not. But if it were its own cause then either it has to be its own eternal cause making itself exist infinitely and not in a finite number of temporal moments, or it really wasn’t there before its beginning and then the question is how it could have poofed itself into existence and then in any meaningful sense be worth calling eternal and not just, say, everlasting. It makes no sense though to say that it just came from nothing. We have to posit an eternal something or there would still be nothing. So, since the universe has a beginning it is likelier to say that the eternal something is not within the universe but exists independently of it and has no beginning itself.

Jaime: But then your god does not freely choose to create the world. It just always does this as a necessary, eternal expression of itself.

Robin: No, there is no necessity in the concept of the eternal, self-subsisting being that necessitates He also be a world creator. From the fact that He has created a world it is clear he could do it, that it’s within His power. But He didn’t have to.

Jaime: But “He” just eternally always does this.

Robin: Yes. In that sense God is free to create or not. The concept of God, as far as we understand it, is not identical with the concept of the world. Therefore, it is not the essence of God to express itself in the world. They are distinguishable concepts. There are alternate possibilities that involve the principle of being, i.e. God, creating different worlds or no world at all. In that sense, this world must be chalked up to a choice by God—even if that’s a different, non-temporal kind of choosing, distinct from any kind we do as temporal creatures.

Jaime: How is it a choice if it’s made eternally and timelessly? All choices we make happen through a process, be it conscious or unconscious. There seems to be a fundamental disanalogy between the notion of a fundamental being principle which is outside the universe conceptually being able to either create or not create different possible worlds and a personal being making such a choice. A personal being is one that goes through a thought process that is temporal to make a choice based on things like desires, emotions, personal relationships to other beings, etc. What you describe could have no substantive similarity to such a being. You’re basically saying that whatever the eternal thing is, it’s not part of the universe and conceptually we cannot assume it needed to either create our universe or any other universe. But even if we grant this being existed, we cannot know (a) that it didn’t generate all universes and not just ours, (b) that something inaccessible to us about it did necessitate it create our universe (or, even, that it necessitated that it create all universes) or (c) that it was personal. In fact, as soon as you say it is timeless, I have to say it is impersonal as all other timeless abstract objects—like, again, numbers. And so metaphors of choice are misleading.

Robin: Well, impersonal forces can make choices. Your computer goes through decision procedures and makes choices all the time.

Jaime: True, but it’s not timeless. It’s the timelessness, that makes both personality and choice impossible. It just eternally would be making one of its eternal choices or eternally expressing a non-choice. But there would never be a moment of alternate possibilities followed by a moment of selection of one over others. And even then it is hard to see in what sense we could assume this being has any choices. All things in our experience are constrained by their natures. Why would not this being which timelessly makes an eternal choice for a world (or worlds) to instantiate not also be expressing an eternal essence the only way it possibly can when it instantiates the world or worlds it does?

Robin: God would be free because He would be outside the causal nexuses of our experience within the world. Determinations only occur within the constraints of nature. But God is beyond nature and not bounded by a nature. He is omnipotent, not finite in power.

Jaime: But the concept of a being with no constraints placed on it by a nature of what it is is incoherent. Either it has a set, whether finite or infinite, of powers, each with coherent natures that have specific means of performing actions or not performing them, or it cannot do anything. A god would have to have a nature that made it what it was and it could not create its own nature too without exercising powers it had through that nature itself.

Robin: Well, God is just the being who exists identically with His nature. He just always exists how he exists. And is not (like humans) just a hypothetical being with a nature that may become instantiated or not. He and His nature eternally are just both there.

Jaime: But then your god has a nature and is subject to its logic. So the logic of your god’s nature is a deeper reality than your god itself. It constitutes and constrains your god.

Robin: But no—God’s nature is not complex. It’s not made of parts. God’s nature is utterly simple, so God and His nature are identical and the most rudimentary being. It’s not like there are further parts of God. God is not made up of numerous powers, each with their own natures, which compose Him as an aggregate being. That would have God made of parts, even if not spatial parts, and that would make no sense. In some way, God must be radically simple such that all his powers are all identical with Him himself.

Jaime: But then you’re saying all your god’s powers are not distinguishable powers but are the same one simple thing. So your god’s love equals his creative power, which equals his destructive power which equals his power of intelligence. Then the powers are incoherent and make no sense.

Robin: But they do. From one respect we can see God’s power as love and from another we can see it as creative force. This is because God’s love is expressed in His creating and God’s creating is the expression of Love.

Jaime: That’s trivial. You can find specific acts that you could attribute to more than one power at once, but that does not make those powers identical in nature. Either you have separate powers, explicable by parts which create them or you don’t have any differentiations. Your god needs parts to make any sense. And those parts have to be spatial since even those activities like “willing” and “loving” and “personhood” and “knowing” which we think of as “non-physical” in all known reality are scientifically seen to emerge only out of essentially bodily components. They cannot exist anywhere in the universe in disembodied form. There is no reason to project such traits into a non-spatial, non-temporal being. These are powers that are rooted in bodily processes. We have these multiple powers because of the multiple processes that our brains can carry out. Some of the powers overlap, probably in no small part because they use some of the same constituent brain parts and processes to function. But they are distinguishable by function and by the uses of at least some different brain features.

Robin: But if the source of all being did not have rationality in it, then how could it create a rational world explicable by rationality? Even though for us rationality is something temporally carried out through reasoning processes, it must be able to exist in some non-temporal way as a basis of the universe itself for the universe to be rational at all. But to make the universe rational, you need a rational mind to start with.

Jaime: But you don’t! For there to be things at all, it just requires that they be the things they are and not other things—at least in their most basic constituent parts. Obviously complex beings are multiple things. But whatever multiple things they are cannot be mutually exclusive. In other words, each thing cannot be another thing that it would involve a contradiction for it to be. There are conceptually graspable limits on what different kinds of beings a particular being can simultaneously be or not be at the same time. This is just basic to there being anything at all. Were there no inherent constraints on beings, at the most rudimentary levels of the world, then there could not be anything. All would be an inherently formless and unformable chaos. So some basic universal categories according to which things differentiate must eternally simply be part of reality and make its expressions into different kinds regular and rationally explicable.

Robin: But how could those categories exist without a rational mind to make them? How could there be multiple of them, all coordinating logically with each other to make a universe or universes without utter unformable chaos?

Jaime: It’s no clearer to attribute all those universals to eternal existence in a radically simple and (puzzlingly) personal being either. There is a fact of multiple universals and rationally explicable laws of their conceptual relationships and laws of the interactions among physical kinds, etc. This multiplicity seems basic. Or if it’s not basic it would be explicable at least in terms of deeper, impersonal, more rudimentary realities. Even a god would have to be composed according to these basic laws of being and composition. And in such a case, positing such a being is wholly unhelpful and superfluous. It still would not explain why those basic ontological realities, through which it itself emerged, themselves existed.

To be continued...

Your Thoughts?

__________________________________________

Previous Debates Between Robin and Jaime:

Hell as the Absence of God

God and Goodness

Is It Just A Mystery Whether God Exists?

More Debates Featuring Jaime:

A Debate About The Value of Permanent Promiscuity

Moral Perfectionism, Moral Pragmatism, Free Love Ethics, and Adultery

On The Ethics of “Sugar Daddies” and “Sugar Babies”

A Debate About the Wisdom of Trying to Deconvert People

Atheist Fundamentalism?

Bullying or Debating? Religious Privilege or Freedom of Speech?

I examined arguments that hell is God’s favor to those who just don’t want to be with him in my post Hell as the Absence of God (a fictional dialogue between my characters Jaime and Robin).

Although I think there are ways to imagine immortality which do not conceive of it as a boring waste of time, here and here Mano Singham raises some interesting challenges to the value of what Christians offer as immortality.

The Ruslan Sirota album Brian plugs at the end of the video is here.

Your Thoughts?

So children, after he destroyed almost all of humanity with a giant flood, God gave us the rainbow as a symbol that he would never destroy humanity again and that instead things were going to be ‘FAAABUUULOUUUUSS!!!’

Your Thoughts?

Your Thoughts?

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

“It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles,” a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. “All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It’s a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial.”

“We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers,” says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center. “It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000.”

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn’t allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

There you have it. George W. Bush “attacked” the Roman Catholic Church. He hated the 1st Amendment too. Roman Catholicism was unconstitutionally destroyed in America over a decade ago and no one noticed.

Read More.

In case you missed any Camels With Hammers the last two weeks, this story had my attention quite a bit. First I debated a Catholic theology student for three posts:

For all you historical revisionist, theocratic Christian Dominionist Tea Partiers out there, here’s “I Heard George Washington Weeping”.

Your Thoughts?

George Takei : Japanese Internment Camp Survivor from Conn Videos on Vimeo.

He has more to say about it today, on the 70th anniversary of Executive Order 9066. His goal is to raise money for a show about the internment, called Allegiance.

Your Thoughts?

You?