Musings …

Category: Ethics

  • Please Read Federalist #68 to See Why We Should Keep It and Swear to Honor It!

    ​The arguments for the Electoral College are elucidated there. Those who claim to value the “Intent of the Framers” – if they really subscribe to that and are not just trotting that out whenever convenient – should read and learn that the Electoral College has been subverted. Read there, prescient descriptions of the kind of person, that is, THE PERSON, who is not yet president-elect. That only after ratification by the electoral college. The Intension of the Framers was clearly to block such a person as Trump from being President. If we were to do away with the Electoral College instead of repairing our system to enable it to function as intended, we will never be able to bring it back.

    In the future, if someone also unqualified to be President – perhaps someone much less unqualified than Donald Trump or hard to imagine but “God Help Us More So” – was selected, we would no longer have access to the Electoral College to bail us out. We would be STUCK!!!

    Please read. Its amazing. Federalist #68

  • Conversation with Defender of Trump Tweets and Subsequent Threats to Carrier Union Leader

    Them:  I’ll wait till the dust settles and we have all the facts before I comment. I find far too much emotion going on, in what should be intellectual evaluation of the happenings and events in our world.

    Me: The dust is settling and piling up. (Adding now: Even if he resigned now and disappeared off the face of the earth, or the cosmos entire, the dust will never be finished settling.) There is not enough emotion going on where it belongs: in the Electoral College and the House and Senate. Intellectual evaluation should result in the appropriate concomitant emotional reaction according to Ayn Rand. 

    Them: For all of those in “never Trump” mind set,… 

    Me: I am not or ever been in the “never Trump” mind set. I am not in any mind set. I was convinced from the moment that he played the “birther” card that he was morally decrepit and unfit by virtue of character to hold any public office, let alone President. I don’t keep my position because of a “mind set.” There has been no new evidence since to indicate otherwise. I keep to my conclusion because he has said or done nothing to demonstrate otherwise, and seemingly day by day, confirms my conclusion. That is not a mind set. It is a position held based on continuing observations. My conclusion is subject to change, as everyone’s conclusions should be, but changes should come from evidence, old or new, reevaluations and new evaluations. New evidence confirms my original conclusion and there is none else. His challenge to the President’s legitimacy was, for me, in Aristotle’s terms, “Necessary and Sufficient.”

    Them: …if you could dictate Mr. Trump’s actions, what specifically  would you have him do to satisfy your desires for now and the future?”

    Me: Resign immediately.

    Them: Let’s all remember that with rare exception we are all trying to do the best for ourselves and others, and that in most cases we are arguing over the details of how to cook the fish and not if we should be having apples for dinner.

    Me: Your last paragraph does not apply to him.

    Me: Personally attacking an opponent, signalling a target for attack from your hoard, smacks of the Brown Shirts [the SA]. In those days the orders were given behind the scenes. Here we see the orders given in public, and the responses taken right before our very eyes! How much more intimidating can you get?

    Washington Post Article

  • Latifundism and the Jubilee Year

    ​From John Dominic Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus.”

    Note especially the wonderful quotation from Isaiah included.

    Or, as Isaiah 5: 8 said, it was intended to defeat “you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!”

    First, what was the purpose of the Jubilee Year? And notice, by the way, that it started on the Day of Atonement. Here, at least, the answer is quite clear. From Léon Epsztein: “…in order to restrict the creation of latifundia, [that is,] to prevent the concentration of rural properties”(133). From Norman Habel: “The policy provided a mechanism for deferring in the short term and preventing in the long term land monopolies of latifundialization, the process of land accumulation in the hands of a few landowners to the detriment of peasant farmers”(105). From Jeffrey Fager: “It attempted to restrict the latifundism which was prevalent in the ancient Near East in order to keep the means of production evenly distributed among independent families”(88).

    Or, as Isaiah 5: 8 said, it was intended to defeat “you who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is room for no one but you, and you are left to live alone in the midst of the land!”

    It wanted to stop the transformation of multiple peasant smallholdings into single large landownerships, to deter the eradication of the family farm and the creation and extension of latifundism or agribusiness. That, of course, put divine tradition on a collision course with rural commercialization.

  • If You Think a Trump Presidency is Dangerous, You Should Declare for Hillary and Not Put Us All At Risk!

    “None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states, though it notes later that many Americans “have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.”

    “Mr. Bellinger said that among the signatories, “some will vote for” Mrs. Clinton, “and some will not vote, but all agree Trump is not qualified and would be dangerous.”

    The greater the threat he is, the less should be the willingness to take the risk for those who recognize the threat. An extreme expectation of disaster should be accompanied by no willingness to take any risk,
    i.e., ANY risk.

    Knowing the dangers and not declaring advocacy for a Clinton Presidency, any misgivings whatsoever notwithstanding, raises a multitude of questions about those failing to declare for Mrs, Clinton. None of the answers being good!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us/politics/national-security-gop-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

  • Amoral Republicans Hide Behind Expectation of Trump Loss!

    We ask the obvious question: Why don’t the Republican establishment and office holders declare now that they will vote for Hillary when they  know that a Trump presidency will be an unmitigated disaster! They are counting on a Trump loss to shield them from their moral responsibility to go beyond saying they won’t vote for Trump, and declare they will vote for Hillary.
         Imagine that the election was looming and the horror of a Trump presidency was imminent. They would have to declare for Hillary since they would be blamed, and truly be responsible for the impending calamity. But we would not learn that they were patriotic Americans, only that they were amoral Pragmatists. That is, those coincidentally doing the right thing, not because it was the right thing to do, but with no moral scruples whatsoever, to survive.
         Their only way to claim basic decency for themselves would be to declare for Hillary NOW! Fortunately for us, at the moment at least, it looks like we can confirm for ourselves the moral quality of Republicans who don’t declare for Hillary – that they don’t have any – because they will continue to be able to hide behind their hope, and now expectation, that Trump will lose!

  • Comment on Pragmatism that Missed the Boat at the New York Times

    You caught my interest straightaway by calling yourself “Pragmatist” and you fulfill it in saying, “In Trump, they see someone who doesn’t care about religion, but is more likely to support their views if it elects him.” You immediately go on to say,” The moral depravity of this position, of course, is clear to all thinking people.”

    But I don’t think it is at all “clear to all thinking people.” That perhaps because you are the first person I have encountered to have even brought it up.

    My clarity is that this behavior invokes one of the classic formulas for Pragmatism, i.e., “The Ends Justify the Means.” This is a formula for amorality because the selection of the “Ends” is beyond the scope of Pragmatism. Those ends, chosen for the arbitrary convenience of the Pragmatist, justify the means, however heinous!

    [I just realized that this is so even if the means fail! At least in the formula, “If it Works it’s Good,” if it doesn’t work it’s not good.  I never thought I would find something not so bad about Pragmatism!]

    Trump’s religious [sic] supporters are hypocrites as well, but Pragmatism is the unforgivable crime since in a world of amorality, the world of Pragmatism – unfortunately our world it seems – anything goes!

    ______________

    My comment was a reply to a comment by Pragmatist to The Theology of Donald Trump – – The New York Times – Peter Wehner – July 5, 2016.

    Pragmatist’s comment follows.  I address only his opening paragraph since after that, Pragmatism is no longer the subject:

    No person who is a devout Christian could support Trump because of his religious beliefs. The Evangelical right (by which I mean the non-denominational, largely independent evangelical churches) is embracing him as they know Clinton will not support their agenda. It is a political calculation. In Trump, they see someone who doesn’t care about religion, but is more likely to support their views if it elects him. The moral depravity of this position, of course, is clear to all thinking people. Interestingly, I doubt he will feel indebted and will probably ignore them once he is done using them.

    One asks why the Evangelical right does not see the issue Wehner raises, perhaps it is rooted in their notion of belief. Many believe the world is 6000 years old, reject evolution, reject modern cosmology, believe literally in a book that has had substantial “corrections” over the past 50 years due to better translations/older versions of texts, believe gays need to be “fixed,”, etc. This is a group which values belief over fact no matter how preposterous. The problem is an ecumenical one: they are out of sync with educated, mainstream Christian thought and have been acting contrary to Christian values as the author makes clear. It is not that the followers are intentionally unchristian, it is that they are easily led because they have sold out independent thinking and the use of facts in the dialogue.

  • What Do the Pharmaceutical Industry and the NRA Have in Common?

    Money Trumps Lives!

    While Governor Chris Christie was announcing that he would not address any expansion of New Jersey’s medical marijuana program, after a 24 hour seizure, a 15 month-old baby died.

    “I am done expanding the medical marijuana program.  Under any circumstances.”

    The Governor couldn’t know that Sabina was being taken off her respirator at the time, but as far as I know, nothing more has been done in New Jersey to ease the unnecessary pain that medical marijuana could help or to save the children’s lives that could be saved.

    “… the state has still not given the marijuana dispensaries permission to sell edibles.  And Sabina’s death has convinced other families to get edible marijuana for their children whatever ways they can.”

    “State legislators introduced another bill that would allow parents to bring edible marijuana from other states until edibles are sold in New Jersey.”

    “At a press conference in December, right after he was re-elected, [speaking while Sabina was dying] Christie said he wouldn’t consider it.”

    “The pressure from parents recently caused the governor to acknowledge there are flaws with the medical marijuana program. He blamed it on the dispensaries, saying the businesses are not offering edibles because there is no profit in it for them.”

    “But the state has [had] still not given the marijuana dispensaries permission to sell edibles.”

    How disingenuous can Christie be?

    This is insane!

    The weapons industry’s opposition to any restrictions is likewise insane!

    First of all, re the gun industry, in the face of their ludicrous position, I cannot credit any of the reasons they give on behalf of their position with any honour.

    Likewise, how can we explain why Governor Christie would take such a position and make such phony excuses?  Even if some of the reasons he gives may sound reasonable on the surface, they are similarly incredible (or lies).  There is no honour in them.  They are disingenuous at best.  BOUGHT?

    This incomprehensible response to the unnecessary,  criminally negligent and unconscionable death of a child, while taking no action to save the lives of others, boggles the mind!  The pharmaceutical industry’s opposition to and crippling of Obama Care, jeopardizing millions of lives, boggles the mind!  Can you come up with any answer other than money?  I can’t!

    All quotes from WNYC Report: “The Risks Parents Take to Get Their Kids Medical Marijuana,” Friday, April 18, 2014

  • Prayer in Schools: Chris Matthews’ Guest, Libertarian Matt Kibbe, Evades the Issue with Sophistry

    When asked if children should be subjected to religious views or practices not their own, Mr. Kibbe said that government should not be involved. Mr. Matthews anticipated incorrectly that Mr. Kibbe meant the Federal government, but Mr. Kibbe objected to State government involvement too. Mr. Matthews chuckled and left off.

    There is a crafty sophistic trick here. Presumably we could drill down to city, local and to even smaller units, to the smallest governments. We are expected to understand that whether or not there will be prayer in a school, or even in a particular classroom, will be decided at the school or classroom level. The usual unspoken subtext is that parents should be doing the deciding.

    But there is no difference of any meaningful kind between the functioning of a government over large jurisdictions or the very smallest. The principal or PTA of a school, or the parents of the children in individual classrooms all act like micro-governments. There is no way to avoid some people making decisions for, or have jurisdiction over others!

    The key for me is that some people deciding for others that they must have what they don’t want is plainly wrong; in a public environment, stopping people from having things at the expense of others is plainly right!

    So, to assure that as many people as possible are spared from subjection to the inconsiderate wants of others, the largest governmental authority should have jurisdiction. For us that would be the Federal Government. For the world there is no existing authority, but for the universe it would be God.

  • Two Subjects – Same Issue: Denying the Obvious Puts Us Opponents of Torture and the Death Penalty at a Severe Disadvantage

    Torture:  Torture works, i.e., gets useful information from the victim if the victim has useful information.

    Death Penalty:  Some crimes deserve death.

    I couldn’t help observing to myself that if information was wanted from me and I was threatened with being forced into a scalding hot shower I would tell whatever I knew.  If I was brave enough to let a finger in, I would immediately relent and talk.  It goes beyond my ability to conceive that others would resist.  This seems obvious.

    It also seems obvious that those who commit certain crimes are no longer entitled to their lives.

    The opponents of torture and the death penalty argue that torture doesn’t work, absurd, and that the state has no right to take lives.  They take these positions because they don’t realize that their key arguments are all they need.  The resulting problem is that the advocates of torture and the death penalty stand on firm ground on these points and can forever hold there advocacy hostage to them.

    Torture:  I cannot imagine that advocates of torture, or ordinary people who aren’t sure, question the ability of torture to get information, made up if the victim has no information, but true if the victim does.  We must argue this point on the evil of torture and the evil of the society that practices it.

    Death Penalty:  It is so much simpler to just grant that some have forfeited their right to live and then argue that society never, that is absolutely never, ever, has the right to take the life of an innocent person.  Society does not have the right to even take the chance that it may kill someone who is innocent.

    Only when the opponents of torture and the death penalty square up to the distractions of making invalid arguments and give them up, do we have a better chance to convince those who are undecided or maybe even some advocates!

     

  • Debt Ceiling Cliff: Fabulous opportunity for John Boehner to take control! Just needs to think outside the box.

    • Step one: Identify his real enemy. DONE: His own party, especially the conservatives who are holding the rest of the party hostage.
    • Final Step:  Get them to beg him to release the House to vote through a clean bill.
    • How:  Delay releasing them while the number of declared moderates climbs up and up as the debt limit deadline gets closer and closer to the brink of Republican disaster until they all, conservatives included, realize he holds their lives in his hands! Make them all beg, especially the conservatives.  Make them guarantee his dominance going forward before agreeing to save their asses!  Terrify them more by delaying to the bitter end!