The Mosque

I can't get away from this issue.  Its on the daily show, its on the front page of google news, its on the news every other day.  So lets think about it some.

There seems to be a two groups of people talking past each other, and then there's President Obama.  One group, wants to emphasize that this is insensitive to New Yorkers, Americans, and survivors of the 9/11 attack.  The other group wants to emphasize that there is a right to freedom of religion, and that to deny the building of the Mosque/cultural center would be in violation of the Constitution, which New Yorkers, Americans, and the survivors of 9/11 attack think make America so great in the first place. 

President Obama recently came out and said... well... Both.  In one press conference he said that he supports the legal right to build the cultural center/mosque, but in another interview, he said that it wasn't terribly well thought out. 

Now this might sound like political double-talk to save face, minimize the impact it might have on future elections for Democrats, etc.  but I actually think it may encapsulate the issue quite nicely.

Neither group are holding a position that is mutually exclusive.  I can believe that group X has a right Y, but the exercise of right Y in instance Z would be offensive.    A right doesn't mean that the exercise of the right wouldn't be offensive. 

I might have every right to speak my mind, but doing so may offend some people that I care about very dearly.  So I might hold my tongue, and doing so, doesn't destroy my right, or weaken my right to free speech, but rather emphasizes my care and sensitivity towards others. 

I think there is a secondary concern here.  Islam and Muslim culture in general has already been demonized in American culture, since 9/11.  Generally, Muslims are treated with suspicion and caution, or at least it seems like it.  They're the new Communist.  Undeservedly, of course, since this is a broad generalization of a particular group, based upon the most extreme members of that group.  Every group is filled with lunatics, but to paint all Christians as abortion clinic bombers or invading crusaders, would be unfair. 

Marginalized groups in a sense, need to work extra hard to be accepted.  This isn't fair, but its the way it is.  We've seen this before with racially oppressed groups, particularly African Americans.  For an African American to participate in the normal walks of life, initially, they had to be head and shoulders better than everyone else.  They needed to be Jackie Robinson, instead of some very good baseball player.  They had to go above and beyond the "minimum qualifications" to be able to participate.  Fair?  No. 

So either we can change the culture of America (unlikely), and make it more fair for Muslim and those of the Islamic faith, or they have to tread more carefully than others.    Personally, I wish we could change the culture of America.  Reiterate equality, tolerance, and understanding.  But I also have a practical side of me too.  I think the Mosque should be built, and nobody would complain about it at all.  Of course, that won't happen.

I think Feisal Abdul Rauf should really think carefully about how this would impact how Americans view Muslim and Islamic culture.  There is a risk that they may become more marginalized because of the perceived insensitivity of the act of building the Mosque/cultural center, which wouldn't be beneficial for anyone really.  But on the other hand, it may bring to the forefront the real Muslim and Islamic culture.  It may force people to reconsider their prejudices.  But I have a feeling that would be wishful thinking.  Those who are vehemently against the project, are unlikely to visit the Mosque/cultural center with an open mind, trying to learn about the those that they have already made a private demonizing judgment.

Euthanasia's terrible reputation

I find it odd that people have serious reservations about euthanasia still.  This isn't to say that there aren't serious considerations that need to be taken into consideration about whether it should be performed in this instance or that instance.  But the act, generally, is hard to deny. 

Perhaps, its because of its association with the Nazi party that really made things difficult for euthanasia to gain a foothold in the public consciousness.  I think, though, this is a product of the unfortunately powerful Nazi propaganda machine more than anything.  To say that the Nazi's engaged in euthanasia is like saying a straight man is being discriminatory towards males.  Its a misuse of the term.

When the Nazi's utilized "euthanasia" the state determined when it was acceptable for a person to live or die, not based on any particular medical condition, patient desire, or quality of life issue, but rather based on a perceived inferiority of a particular group.  We properly call this genocide, and although many today call it that, its hard to shake the synonymous relationship that history made between genocidal acts and euthanasia. 

When I speak about euthanasia, I'm referring to a medical practice of terminating a life because the person is terminally ill.  The least controversial form of euthanasia, is voluntary euthanasia, where the person to be euthanize is terminally ill and requests euthanasia.  There are cases that fall in-between these definitions, and although they are very difficult, I wouldn't call them euthanasia.  I'm thinking of cases in which a person is not terminally ill, but requests to be killed because of quality of life issues and their inability to terminate their own lives.  The film "Million Dollar Baby" is a good example of such a case. 

Surely, we can see the moral differences between the Nazi genocide program, and euthanasia.  The Nazis murdered people who wanted to continue to live.  If they did want to die, it is most likely because of the conditions that the Nazi's forced them to endure within concentration camps.  Causing a person to suffer from a terminal illness is just as bad as murdering them.  In the case of euthanasia, assumedly, the doctor or the government did not cause directly their current afflictions, nor is their choice for living out the remainder of their life taken away from them. 

Old associations die hard though.  (This is by no means a full account of why euthanasia is acceptable.  This is simply an account of why a very common objection to euthanasia is not a powerful objection.)

Jeff McMahn on Vegetarianism

Philosophy Bites did a pretty good interview with Jeff McMahn on vegetarianism.  I think he's a bit wrong about his comments on fish (the pain aspect and how less objectionable it is because of it).   I'll say more about it after I think about the interview a bit more.

Freegans

A NYtimes article on a group of squatters living a freegan life.  Although I'm not going to advocate freeganism or an entire freegan lifestyle (free houses, really?), I can't really say that I find it wrong.  
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Squatters-t.html?hp

Synthetic life

I'm watching the science channel's "Creating Synthetic Life" discussion panel on TV right now....  and Paula Zahn  makes me want to cry.  Her toughest ethical questions for the panel are "Are we playing god?" and "It scares me."

They did talk about bio-terrorism, but they dismissed the objection rather quickly with something to the effect of,
"human beings are cruel to each other, but this also has the potential to be very beneficial to us as well."  This is very true, but if a terrorist group can literally manufacture any virus that they have sequenced, then a hemorrhagic virus could cause quite a lot of damage before anyone can do much about it.   She should have pressed much harder on these points.

But overall, I'm in support of this research.  I'm actually far more excited by this then stem cell research has ever excited me (which it never did much).  Whereas stem cell research might provide many medical breakthroughs, synthetic biology could allow us to create new sources of fuel, help clean up oil spills, remove carbon from the atmosphere, etc.  SCR benefits are almost exclusively medicinal, synthetic biology is affects everything from energy, to manufacturing, to medicine, to food, to well, anything that we can get living things (bacteria) to produce.

The confederate flag

So I think most of the media hoopla has died down over this.  Its kinda weird when something practically in your backyard garners national attention.

Anyways, I wasn't terribly interested in this particular story as hugely problematic issue.  I think it is just a bunch of teenagers getting upset and offended over really nothing.  "ZOMG! He's wearing a flag! He must be disrespecting >ME<" as if the world revolved around themselves.

But what >I< did find rather offensive was one particular student.  One of the "American" flags that one student was wearing was an image of multiple flags, including the American flag, on the back, and the confederate flag on the front. 

Why is the confederate flag a symbol of patriotism?  Its a symbol of a failed cessationist movement that threatened to DESTROY America in Civil War.  A cessationist movement sparked over and largely motivated by the desire to enslave people.  If you're going to pick a symbol that would represent your patriotism, then I'd humbly suggest that you pick a different symbol.

Worst yet, it doesn't even seem to give with the social rhetoric that people often tout.  Love America or leave it.  The south apparently didn't LOVE America so they tried to leave it.  So waving the confederate flag suggests that one doesn't love America.

Now, I'm sure some would say that there is a certain patriotic overtone to the the confederate flag.  The American ethos of forging ahead, doing thing differently, independent spirit.  But we don't celebrate our failures.  We don't hoist up for all to see DDT and exclaim, Forging ahead!  Independent Spirit!

Perhaps its a symbol of Southern culture?  I'm not opposed to symbolizing particular sects of the our nation by a flag.  Heck, each part of our nation has particular symbols that represent them.  The Hollywood sign, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Empire State Building all represent subcultures of our nation.  Put it on a flag, and wave it, and you've got yourself a symbol.  But to pretend that the confederate flag doesn't represent a pro-slavery movement is like pretending rainbow flags show your support for rain.

Wear a peach.  Wear a cotton ball.  Wear a plantation house.  Wear a mint julep.  Wear Boss Hogg and Roscoe P. Coltrane.  But don't wear the General Lee.

Why I am not a Localvore

Here is a pretty good read on the Greening up our food, and why it may be hurting the impoverished around the world.  Oddly, he doesn't make the most obvious argument for helping the impoverished world and that is simply buying food products from those that can export them.  As more people become localvores, foreign farmers lose more consumers, pushing them further into poverty.  Now Paarlberg is concentrating on those who are in much worse conditions, and I agree those are people we should assist first.

But this is where I start disagreeing with him.  First, he says that we should bring the industrial model to Africa.  Now we have tried industrial models in Africa, and they don't succeed because,  infrastructure aside, its too expensive.  In America we give farmers heavy subsidies to ensure a reliable income in times when crops fail because of weather, or whatever other reason.  These subsidies also keep food prices artificially low, making them affordable by all (at least for the staple crops like corn and wheat). 

Second, when he says that the industrial model does not create unsafe food, he seems to be focusing only on plants.  With crops, he's correct.  With livestock, he's incorrect.  In fact, most outbreaks involving crops, are usually traced back to livestock.  But he conveniently forgets this when he brings up fertilizer run-offs.  Suddenly farming includes livestock again.

So what about animal manure and fertilizers?  First, fertilizers and pesticides are already OVER used.  If there is little financial incentive to avoid over fertilizing and over spraying, other than you're wasting product, but the product is already dirt cheap as it is, and the losses are could be significant if you UNDER fertilize and spray, farmers tend to err on the side of overuse.  This is the profit first thinking that characterizes industrial food production.  So his analysis that organic farming would be worse, because the amount of livestock would increase is simply flawed.  First, if we simply had fewer livestock, we would have less need for cropland, since most of our cropland is devoted to feeding our livestock.  Second, if we utilized manure instead of petroleum based fertilizers, industrial farmers would aim to UNDER fertilize than over fertilize, since it would be more expensive, and increase the risk of E. coli which could significantly damage their brand marketability.

But Paarlberg does bring up many good points about the green revolution in food, like organic not being particularly healthier, or safer for that matter.  The industrial argiculture is becoming more green, and more efficient, as always, and in many ways this is better for the environment.

Strangely, Paarlberg doesn't suggest the easiest way that we can aid the impoverished of the world.  Donate money to them.  World poverty rates have dropped almost in half from the 60s to today, largely due to the work of NGOs.  World poverty does not have to continue to exist.  If we have been able to reduce world poverty in half in 50 years, we could eliminate it in probably 20 more years if we simply gave money, in a responsible manner, to assist them.