Monthly Archives: October 2009

Pronouncing moral judgment

Q: When should you openly disagree with someone who makes a statement concerning morality when you disagree with it?

A: Always

To quote Ms. Rand:

“Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.”

Do it. Every time the situation occurs.

Having said that, two things should be kept in mind:

#1 Remember the context of your disagreement. If you don’t like biker gangs, it’s not the best idea to walk into a hangout bar, climb a table, and yell “Bikers are assholes!”. Your level of disagreement may be as mild as a quietly uttered “I disagree”, or as strong as daily campaigning for a moral cause. The degree of disagreement is not of paramount importance, as long as the disagreement is openly stated.

#2 Remember that pronouncing such judgments requires that you yourself maintain a proper moral life. You may be wrong (and you will be sometimes), but you must be honest enough with yourself to be rationally certain.

(Note: I am not an objectivist. I agree with a good deal that Ayn Rand said and wrote, but I vehemently disagree on many of the real-world applications of her philosophy that she and many of her followers have espoused.)

The poor pay for it

The poor in America pay the highest rates for:

1) loans (The poor are a “bad risk”, so banks won’t loan, and other loans–from paycheck cashing places and other less formal means–are at usury rates.)

2) transportation (Buses and taxis cost far more per mile than using a car.)

3) food (Since transportion is dear, and most poor don’t live within walking distance of discount grocery stores, they eat fast food and grocery shop at expensive convenience stores.)

4) medical services (ER is usually the best they can do, and most don’t have insurance)

5) birth (These costs are less obvious and more insidious–very little pre-natal care, no post-natal care, poor nutrition, minimal or no education, etc. In many ways, this one is more costly than the other 5 combined.)

Has everyone gone *completely* batshit crazy over the term “czar”?

The term as far as it applies to the U.S. government was entirely a media invention, and has happened before.

President George H. Bush (aka Prince George the Oblivious) appointed William Bennett, Reagan’s Secretary of Education, as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Since Bennett was in essence completely in charge of the U.S. “war on drugs” (a completely pointless, tragic, devastatingly harmful money pit of a government program), the press got around to calling Bennett the drug “czar” (the title used by the pre-Bolshevik rulers of Russia).

The approbation stuck, and the use of the term “czar” to denote presidentially-appointed personnel who wield plenipotentiary powers to create and implement policy became common.

Now, those who don’t know history continue to demonstrate their preponderance to repeat it. When the early U.S. presidents gathered trusted friends about them to advise on domestic and foreign issues, the press and Congress began to derisively call such groups of advisors “kitchen cabinets”. The phrase got shortened to “cabinet”, and became calcified (if not codified) into governmental structure.

It was the same damned thing.

So, the ignorant who wring their hands about “commie pinkos” being appointed can now unclench and take a breath.

A moral prayer

I don’t blame the film industry for the statutory rape and underage drug use instigated by Roman Polanski (although I do blame sympathizers like Debra Winger, who need to wake up and smell the need for justice to be done)…

I don’t blame capitalism for the greed-headedness of many corporate CEOs (although I do blame Michael Moore for condemning an economic system that allows him to make his films)…

I don’t blame mass media for the excesses and blatant lies coming from Fox News (although I do blame Rupert Murdoch for making profits from his warping of the news industry)…

I don’t blame the medical system in America for the continued criminal neglect inflicted by the medical insurance system (although I do blame Congresscritters for allowing Big Insurance to remove their balls)…

I don’t blame the Christian religion for the hypocrisy and hatred perpetuated by right-wing fundie nutballs (although I blame the Pope for not rooting out the rape and pedophilia that he passively condones)…

I don’t blame those who find “alternative” lifestyles personally distasteful (although I would fight to the death to preserve the right for others to practice any sort of sexual act as long as it is among consenting adults)…

…and I don’t blame the food industry for trying to make food as affordable as possible (although I would personally strangle with my own hands those who push corn syrup, artificial preservatives, and substandard, filth-laden food on unwitting consumers).

So mote be it.

Way to go, Dave!

I am not a David Letterman fan by any stretch of the imagination. I think his humor (the style of which I call “New York humor”) isn’t very funny. (I put Jerry Seinfeld, Jay Leno, and Larry David in the same category; I’ve yet to even smile at anything said on the old Seinfeld sitcom–except the Soup Nazi.)

That being said, I have to stand and salute Mr. Letterman for last night’s on-air apology to his wife for his pre-marital affairs. Letterman has stepped out of moral bounds on several occasions (the joke about Sarah Palin’s younger daughter getting pregnant was pretty edgy), and he regularly comes back to publicly apologize for such gaffes.

I was struck by his statement:

“…if you hurt a person and it’s your responsibility, you try to fix it.”

Truer words rarely spoken.

Now, maybe the GPS Lady in his car will speak to him again.

Are we alone?

Years ago I read a book called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe.

The authors, Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, put forth the idea that intelligent life–indeed, all life above the level of a single cell–may be vanishingly rare in our universe. Ward and Brownlee argue that the combinations of physical situations and significant astronomical events necessary for complex life to develop are very likely to be vanishingly rare (much in contradiction to the popular Drake/Sagan formula).

The book not only puts forth this most interesting notion; it also contains pithy, concise descriptions of earth-centric geology, astronomy, biochemistry, and other branches of science, and binds them in prose that reminded me pleasantly of that wonderful BBC series Connections by science historian James Burke. It would make a great textbook for teachers/homeschooling parents looking for a connection-based flavor of teaching science.

Why do I mention this book? The idea that intelligent life is rare, or perhaps unique to humanity, resonates strongly within me. The notion that our race may have the unique gift of tool-bearing sentience in all of existence gives me frissons of fear and exaltation at the same time. And it gives new, rather ominous important to the preservation of our race and to expansion off this planet. (Think: we have all of our eggs in one basket right now.)

Ya gotta love the Washington Times

Owned by the “Reverend” Sun Myung Moon, the Times has played the role of Fox News Lite for years, spreading unsubstantiated rumors as if they were factual news.

The latest? Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “safe schools czar”, is being accused of not reporting a reported incident of sex between a 15-year-old student and “an older man” years ago. The story goes that Jennings not only did not reported the repeated statutory rape, but reportedly encouraged continuance of the relationship and advised the boy to use condoms (a highly responsible thing to do). In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, teachers (the profession which Jennings had at the time), are required to report such to law enforcement.

The Times picked this item up from Fox News, which should have been a big red flag right there. An editorial from the Times declares

It’s getting hard to keep track of all of this president’s problematic appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down.

The real story? The boy was actually 16, which is age of consent for Massachusetts. The rest of the real story? Jennings is gay, which is, of course, likely to be the real reason.

Nice try, Mr. Beck. Try harder next time.

UPDATE: A very quiet retraction from Fox News, but a roaring silence from Hannity and the other fringe-y wingnuts.

UPDATE 2: Continue to manufacture facts, Mr. Hannity. Like a broken watch, you’re bound to be right twice a day, anyway.