I'll come back to the STDs being compared to nuclear waste. I promise.
It really irritates me to see how Republicans are currently threatening a filibuster of a bill that will repeal don't ask don't tell. Now there might be a dozen and a half reasons to filibuster the bill, since its attached to other legislation etc. But McCain was waving the flag for why DADT shouldn't be repealed yet yesterday.
He's worried about our troop morale. He's worried that openly gay service members would affect troop morale to the extent that they wouldn't be able to do their jobs as well.
McCain clearly doesn't think very highly of our enlisted. To degrade our troops in saying that they're training isn't sufficient for them to stand next to a gay man or woman without being distracted from their job because they're too worried somebody is going to hit on them is insulting to our armed forces. We have the best trained military in the world. These men and women are disciplined, intelligent, and brave. But of course they all turn into Junior high kids when there is a queer near by right?
To be fair, McCain didn't say that. But I'm pretty confident that what he did say has similar implications, if not so hyperbolic. DADT never should have been in existence. And its about time we get rid of it.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Criminalizing sexual behaviors
I just want to share the link with you.... I'll comment on the subject later.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Miracles
Apparently 79% of Americans believe in miracles. This isn't anything new. In fact the number itself is staggeringly persistent. Be it 2010, or 1990 its usually around 80-90 percent.
I think there is something wrong here. I think the problem, isn't with the belief itself, because if you talked to the average American about this particular belief, you'll quickly find that miracles turn out to be rather mundane things. People surviving a hurricane or an earthquake is a miracle. Someone gets a kidney transplant, its a miracle. Someone wins the lottery, its a miracle. Someone finds a parking space in San Francisco, its a miracle.
The concept of the miraculous itself has degraded from something that circumvents the very laws of nature and logic (Jesus walking on water, resurrecting from the dead, pulling an infinite amount of food from a finite basket, etc.) to something that is improbable....
And sometimes not even to that degree. Its not improbable to die in an earthquake. The reverse is true. It's highly improbable that ANYONE will die in an earthquake. Move to California, the probability will no doubt increase. But the last big earthquake, Loma Prieta, caused 58 people to die, in an area where there was approx 2 million people (estimating here... San Jose has a pop of about a million now, and SF the same). 58 out 2 million isn't exactly highly probable.
So whats the point? The point is that when we adopt the use of a term, in a figurative sense, like miracle, to every day occurrences, we start changing the way we perceive the world. No longer is it figurative after a while. It really is a miracle when I find a parking space, God guided my steering wheel towards the area of the park where I would find a vacant parking space, which then reinforces my idea of God.
"Miracle" isn't the only term that this is happening to. "Hero," especially after 9/11 is being degraded into something below what was or is heroic. "Evil" is another term I think that is being thrown around without much attention. But both of these, I think don't have the same ramifications as miracle does, since it directly reinforces a questionable ontological belief.
I think there is something wrong here. I think the problem, isn't with the belief itself, because if you talked to the average American about this particular belief, you'll quickly find that miracles turn out to be rather mundane things. People surviving a hurricane or an earthquake is a miracle. Someone gets a kidney transplant, its a miracle. Someone wins the lottery, its a miracle. Someone finds a parking space in San Francisco, its a miracle.
The concept of the miraculous itself has degraded from something that circumvents the very laws of nature and logic (Jesus walking on water, resurrecting from the dead, pulling an infinite amount of food from a finite basket, etc.) to something that is improbable....
And sometimes not even to that degree. Its not improbable to die in an earthquake. The reverse is true. It's highly improbable that ANYONE will die in an earthquake. Move to California, the probability will no doubt increase. But the last big earthquake, Loma Prieta, caused 58 people to die, in an area where there was approx 2 million people (estimating here... San Jose has a pop of about a million now, and SF the same). 58 out 2 million isn't exactly highly probable.
So whats the point? The point is that when we adopt the use of a term, in a figurative sense, like miracle, to every day occurrences, we start changing the way we perceive the world. No longer is it figurative after a while. It really is a miracle when I find a parking space, God guided my steering wheel towards the area of the park where I would find a vacant parking space, which then reinforces my idea of God.
"Miracle" isn't the only term that this is happening to. "Hero," especially after 9/11 is being degraded into something below what was or is heroic. "Evil" is another term I think that is being thrown around without much attention. But both of these, I think don't have the same ramifications as miracle does, since it directly reinforces a questionable ontological belief.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
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.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
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
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Squatters-t.html?hp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
