Musings …

Category: Ethics

  • We Must Expand Our Decency and Goodness to Include the Victims!

    In yesterday’s Facebook post I said:

    “Giuliani has Covid.”

    “Please media, if you are disinclined to say, in light of the people who have died because of him and his ilk, and in light of the heartbreak of countless friends, associates, and relatives, “Maybe there’s justice in the World,” just say NOTHING!

    This morning I was pleasantly surprised:

    Apparently my words, or sentiment, or cosmic coincidence, have reached some in the media. This morning, Stephanie Ruhle said that Giuliani had Covid. She and members of her family are recovering from Covid and she is doing her show from home. She mentioned Giuliani to introduce her opening segment on the devastation of the disease and continued with an explanation of her situation and all the “right” things she and her family have been doing and are continuing to do. Saying Giuliani had Covid was ALL she said about him. THANK YOU STEPHANIE!

    It is not necessary to go on to say the considerate and empathetic things that decent people feel the need to say, and that their inherent goodness compels them to do. Our compulsion should be to express our decency, goodness and empathy by ALWAYS INCLUDING our consideration of the victims, and by ALWAYS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT that the people who are responsible for promoting a carnage have disqualified themselves from any soothing.

    Earlier, Mika Brzezinski, responding to a tweet from Giuliani went much farther. She said, “Well isn’t that nice for him!”

    Media, if you can’t bring yourself to be like Mika, then do as Stephanie did. Just say NOTHING!

  • It’s Not What You Did Then, But How You’ve Lived Your Life Since!

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is embroiled in a scandal involving blackface that he wore for a yearbook picture and some shows. He has apologized profusely. But apologizing profusely is not the issue, even if before God, his apology is sincere and complete. What matters is how he’s lived his life since. Has he been a mensch or a far-from-mensch?

    Mitt Romney did an exponentially far worse thing in his youth, but he is certainly a better person now. As President we may not have agreed with him in everything, or anything, but he would have done the job with sincerity and responsibility. A mensch!

    If a person were a mensch, they would never do such a dastardly thing again. If a far-from-mensch, it would be a better world if without our knowledge of their nasty past, they had already been weeded out.

    Details in Yahoo News, if you’re interested.

  • Sessions Failure to Recuse Himself “Several Weeks Ago” is an Indictment of His Character!

    An honorable person would have recused themselves immediately, breaking the news themselves, not waiting, hoping to get away with it!

    But he has been considering “recusal over the last several weeks.” SEVERAL WEEKS!

    “In a statement, Sessions said that over the last several weeks he has been meeting with “relevant senior career department officials” over whether he should recuse himself and “having concluded those meetings today I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any99th matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States.”

    After “several weeks,” I wonder, why TODAY?

    Because the news broke YESTERDAY, and even then he obviously considered trying to get away with it!

    “The move comes after it was reported Wednesday night that Sessions had two meetings with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. in 2016 after he started supporting Donald Trump’s presidential bid and then failed to disclose the contacts during his confirmation hearing.”

    The issue here is not the merits. The issue is character! The slightest genuine question, or ambiguity, should be enough for an honorable person to realize that in an inquiry that will surely raise questions about themself, they don’t belong!

    If he had removed himself immediately, when only he himself was aware of the issue, it would have elevated his stature and perhaps opened some minds which have been dead set against him.

    But, unfortunately, our expectations of him have been confirmed!

    Quotes from: Yahoo News: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from campaign probes amid Russia questions.

  • Here! Here! John Roberts!

    Supreme Court says race-based testimony discriminated against black death row inmate.

    How can one tell if someone who can count on being remembered by history is a decent person? If being remembered well by history is vital, the pivotal question is, “whose history?”

    If, for example, Trump and the Republicans get their way and destroy our country – and no one else has a say, already their obvious purpose – Trump will be the greatest President in history.

    I am hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts, someone who I think is very concerned with how he will be remembered, is acting according to how he HOPES the future will go – even when history is uncertain or appears, like now, to be going in the wrong direction. I am hoping that he is an honest person, acting on the strength of his convictions. I am hoping that he is a good person capable of risking a BAD history looking down on him, acting in favor of a GOOD history looking up!

    In this case, as in the Obamacare case, Justice Roberts found for a respectable future. Here, a short remark in a much larger context made all the difference in the world to Justice Roberts. However much it appeared that the defendant was deserving of the death penalty, the Justice found he was entitled to a new sentencing trial:

    “Roberts said it did not matter that the introduction of the expert testimony was only a small part of the proceedings.

    “When a jury hears expert testimony that expressly makes a defendant’s race directly pertinent on the question of life or death, the impact of that evidence cannot be measured simply by how much airtime it received at trial or how many pages it occupies in the record,” Roberts wrote. “SOME TOXINS CAN BE DEADLY IN SMALL DOSES [my caps].”

    Justice Roberts was decent here, and my  hope is decent always!

    Here! Here! John Roberts!

  • What’s a Real Apology?

    Apologies are real, genuine, when they are sincere, and take unambiguous full responsibility for words and actions, so that their victim can see, and appreciate, that the person who wronged them cares about wronging them. Only then, when the victim has reason to credit their abuser with some decency, can they gather enough respect for them to get some comfort from the apology.

  • ​Am I Crazy? Perhaps!

    Last Friday evening I did something that I expect many, perhaps most, would frown upon or think me crazy. I knew immediately that I wanted to write about it, but found it difficult to come up with an approach. It came to me just now and I began to write.

    At a concert by the New Jersey Symphony at NJPAC in Newark, I called out loudly during the performance. I didn’t yell, but called out much louder than I had intended. My voice reverberated through most of the theatre and I would have been mortified if it hadn’t been for the elderly couple sitting directly behind us. They immediately and unambiguously indicated their approval for what I had done. Others were stony, but that couldn’t matter now. It turned out later when we talked about it, that they didn’t even know why I had called out – they didn’t and couldn’t have seen it – but had given me the benefit of the doubt. That, possibly because I chose an appropriate moment to take action – that’s my guess. What a WONDERFUL thing! To go out on a limb anticipating unpleasantness, but getting validation. AMAZING! I explained to them that I was still “churning,” but if I had done nothing – a bit of an exaggeration, but it is what I said – I would have been churning forever.

    Three beautiful pieces by Tchaikovsky, one quite familiar, the other two not so much, made up the first half, and after the intermission, Mendelssohn’s great Italian Symphony. Pincus Zuckerman was the guest conductor and also soloist in the two opening pieces. Towards the beginning of the second solo piece my attention was commandeered by my noticing, just down below – we were in the first tier, in the first row slightly left of center – the bright screen of what had to be a 5×7 tablet, or larger. I just can’t understand how people can disregard their fellows and have no concern at all for them and their experience. Are they unable to imagine their roles reversed? I guess not since we see so much of this kind of thing.

    So, what to do? Say something? Not say something? But, after what must have been at least six or seven long minutes – was probably five – he, or she, since even later I couldn’t tell, shut it. What to say was easy because it came to me easy, but whether or not to say it? I decided I would call below as I waited impatiently, still wavering, for the one movement piece to finish.

    I don’t even know if he, or whatever, an older person for sure, was using the tablet during the first piece. I can be that oblivious. But after noticing, I am completely incapable of ignoring or unnoticing. Well, that is neither here nor there, so while I waited – distracted from the beautiful playing – I realized when the perfect time to call out would be. With that, I was decided. I knew that Zuckerman would have to leave the stage to return his precious fiddle to safety, so I decided to do my thing the moment he disappeared, applause completely subsided, and the auditoruium descended into its normal in-between-pieces buzz. It was then I loudly called out, “NOW YOU SHUT IT!   KEEP IT SHUT!”

    He and many others turned to look, and I receded. I looked about and discovered the couple behind us clearly showing their approval. No one else – and I was looking around for it – but no one else. So I had taken my chances and they had made my day. So instead of adding to the times when I wanted to take action and chickened out, now I have a story to remember and forever tell. It reminds me of my father who told of seemingly outrageous things that he had done, that, in his heart of hearts, had felt were the right thing to do.

    So he (or she) totally behaved during the entire rest of the concert. Their neighbor to their right read from a smaller tablet during the intermission, but not at all during the rest of the concert. I myself sometimes do that, although I don’t like myself for it. One other person down below, towards the front and far to the right, kept their tablet on for a few minutes, but even if they had been closer and kept it on longer, even for the whole symphony, I would have said nothing. You act once, only one time, and that’s all!

    So am I crazy? I think not. I simply cannot abide things like this. Perhaps it is, or it may definitely be, the Don Quixote in me. My father was like this. Maybe I inherited his Don Quixote gene. I sure do hope so!!!

  • The Primary Scripture!

    ​If I could pick one verse from scripture, and claim that everything else – not just scripture, but everything else – should take account of it, this would be the one:

    “The Lord created me [Wisdom] at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.” (Proverbs 8: 22– 23)

    Crossan precedes this verse with: “Begin with Jewish speculation about divine Wisdom and remember that, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, wisdom is a feminine noun.

    – From The Birth of Christianity – Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus – John Dominic Crossan

  • Another – Better – Conversation About Trump:

    My friend replied to my Facebook post where I mocked the premise of an op-ed article in The New York Times. I argued from its absurd premise to an absurd conclusion.

    My conclusion: Rural Folks Voted for Trump Because He is BAD!

    I do believe that some voted for Trump because he is bad, but not because bad people “need to be represented,” and that Trump “represented” them.

    The gist of the conversation related to my post:

    “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good,” said [J.C. Watts].

     “We are born bad,” he said and added that children did not need to be taught to behave badly — they are born knowing how to do that.”

    If this is true it explains a lot, but since I believe that people are fundamentally good, I find it terribly demoralizing.

    On on lighter note … I recall a Reagan cabinet appointee …[perhaps] James Watt…. [M]y recollection was that he was defended as being representative of the mediocre, “who needed to be represented.”

    So if we apply the analogy and realize how profoundly bad people need to be represented, we then understand why they voted for Donald Trump, their ultimate representative!

    ___________

    His reply:

    I find the logic of this more then a little shaky.
     
    We start out with saying non city dwellers are bad, and therefore voted for Trump making him bad because they voted for him.

    Or 

    non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice.

    Or

    Non city dwellers have no morality, and voted for Trump because they didn’t know any better, or because he was bad.

    Or

    Non city dwellers are good, but voting for Trump made them bad.

    Any way you cut this pie, non city dwellers are going to be offended and put off….

    being that I know the object of this exercise is to bring people together for a concerted action,

    I have to say Nice tongue in cheek piece, well done ! 

    TNO

    __________

    My response:

    Hi JP,

    I address your reply below, point by point.

    The article’s premise was that the rural-urban divide, his expression, was explained by the principles cited in a quote. My post was based on the absurd implications of that quote:

    [The author] “Hearing Mr. Watts was an epiphany for me. For the first time I had a glimpse of where many of my conservative friends and neighbors were coming from…We live in different philosophical worlds, with different foundational principles.”

    Most of the article then gets into other issues involving the rural-urban divide, but he at the very end concludes:

    “Given the philosophical premises Mr. Watts presented as the difference between Democrats and Republicans, reconciliation seems a long way off.”

    I do believe that there are some who voted for Trump because they identify themselves with his character, but not on account of the premises of Watt’s quote:

    [Watts] “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good”

    I think that premise is ridiculous. My analysis is based on his silly premise – also, the premise of the author, by adoption – put forward by Baptist minister and former Republican Congressman, 1995 to 2003, J.C. Watts, who I have known of for a long time.

    From absurd premises come absurd conclusions.

    And to understand, without any ambiguity, where I am coming from:

    “I profoundly believe that Donald Trump is a bad person, a breathtakingly bad person, and I DO conclude that voting for him while aware of his bad character, reflects very badly on those who voted for him.”

    Your reply and my responses:

    [JP] I find the logic of this more than a little shaky.

    We start out with saying non city dwellers are bad – [Me] JC Watts says that they see themselves as being fundamentally bad, not me.

    [JP] and therefore voted for Trump making him bad because they voted for him. – [Me] I nowhere say or imply that voting for Trump made him bad. He needs no help from anyone for that.

    [JP] Or 

    non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice. – [Me] I say that if they (profoundly) need their own character represented in the President, that he was for that purpose, their perfect choice.

    The conclusion of my post was:

    “So if we apply the analogy and realize how profoundly bad people need to be represented, we then understand why they voted for Donald Trump, their ultimate representative!”

    I looked this over and at first thought I should have said “might understand” why they voted for Trump, but then I saw that I said “profound” need. (Note that earlier in my reply, I added profound in parentheses after having realized and written this later.)

    So given a “profound need” and, for the purpose of argument, accepting JC Watt’s claim, I would agree with your accusation.

    I AM saying that, [JP] “non city dwellers are bad and voted for Trump because he is bad or was the bad choice.” – [Me] But I am not saying they voted for him because he was a bad choice, but because he is bad.

    [JP] Or

    Non city dwellers have no morality, and voted for Trump because they didn’t know any better – [Me] I said nothing about that –  [JP] or because he was bad. – [Me] Yes.

    [JP] Or

    Non city dwellers are good, but voting for Trump made them bad. – [Me] JC Watts would say, I speculate, that they are bad from birth. I infer “from birth,” from “fundamentally bad.” I said nothing about how they became good are bad.

    [JP] Any way you cut this pie, non city dwellers are going to be offended and put off…. –  [Me] Yes.

    [JP] being that I know the object of this exercise is to bring people together for a concerted action – [Me] The purpose was to express my response to an absurd remark made by J.C. Watts. (Consider: I believe, hardly anybody reads my stuff.)

    [JP] I have to say Nice tongue in cheek piece, well done ! [Me] Thanks JP!

    TNO

    I hope this helps for us to understand one another better. I have tried my best to address your reply, point by point, as clearly and as honestly as I could.

    __________

    Before posting my reply to his comment I texted him:

    Hi JP,

    I have am going to post a detailed, point by point, response to your reply to my post. I greatly appreciated your approach which I feel set a tone that establishes the basis for a quiet friendly give and take on this explosive subject, or whatever the subject.

    I tried my best to be completely non-inflammatory, as I felt you were, and apologize in advance for any shortcomings in that regard, or any regard.

    Love!!!
    Joe

    __________

    He responded:

    Thanks,

    We are two different people, experiencing the world in different ways but held together by our common love and respect for each other !!!!

    TNO

    To which I replied: Yes!

    __________

    See also the previous conversation:

    I did not read all that he had written, after his first four words in response to my piece were, “Hit pieces, like this.”

  • I did not read all that he had written, after his first four words in response to my piece were, “Hit pieces, like this.”

    My response:
    “So this is a hit piece[!]”

    After, presumably, realizing that that was all I was going to say, he came back with:

    “I have attempted to rectify the situation between us, I really don’t know how we will communicate if you do not read all of what I have written.  I am assuming that [you] are reading some of what I write, and we can go from there, however, without you telling me, I will have no way of knowing how much of what I wrote you read.”

    I replied that I had read only his first four words:

    “You called my article a ‘hit piece.’ You said, ‘Hit pieces, like this…’ Honorable people do not write hit pieces. To say I wrote a ‘hit piece,’ is to attack my character. The instant I am attacked I will stop reading. If I inadvertently read more, I try to suppress what I read, no matter how nice what comes after an attack might seem to be. What can what comes after an attack actually mean?

    “The accusation that I wrote a hit piece must be addressed. Any responses to what I wrote cannot contain implications that challenge my character.

    [Refers to an earlier attempt at conversation:] “You said you didn’t even understand what ad hominem was, when it clearly meant from the context, character assassination. You could have googled it. Instead of addressing my complaint you said you didn’t understand what I was talking about. What am I to make of that?

    “Address my complaint. Understand that by not addressing it, I still stand as accused of writing a hit piece. That is, of doing a dishonorable thing!”

    He later replied with a true apology. I was and am truly grateful!

  • When a Church is Not a Church!

    State Police alerted after Nazareth College students of Muslim faith attend Penfield church


    “After their student status was confirmed, the police dropped the matter.”

    Was this necessary? Was even checking the students story necessary? I have been to this Church many times. Not for Services but for concerts. Thank God the “Church” is longer used for that.