Pandemic Silver Linings

The pandemic has been horrible in so many ways. Lives have been lost. Jobs and businesses have been lost. Education gaps have widened. Friends and loved ones have been isolated from one another. 

But allow me to call out a few silver linings:

Seeing Heroes: Nurses. Grocery store workers. Truck drivers. Meat packing plant workers. Farmers. Restaurant staff. The list goes on and on. The rank and file is full of under-appreciated heroes who have stepped up during this crisis. These are the heroes who are pulling us through this -- not our venerated athletes or CEOs.

Appreciating Missing Critical People: Many parents now have much better understanding of what every teacher deals with every day. What about people who clean houses and cut hair and so many other tasks that we value, but were put on hold? During the lockdown, we have been living the old adage that you don't properly value what you have until it is taken away from you.

BLM: George Floyd wasn't the first. Black and brown people have been victims of police brutality before, so why did these protests really gain traction? I think we can thank the pandemic. 

1. Logistics: Traffic is light and parking is easy. 
2. Free Time: Movie theaters and gyms and most other athletic/entertainment venues are closed. Plus, unemployment is around 20%.
3. No Distractions: There are no sports or new movies or other distractions to replace it in the news cycle. The BLM movement is flourishing in the open space created by the pandemic.

Inspiring Change: The wheels of progress in education grind incredibly slowly. The pandemic has the potential to add a big jolt of innovation as schools and educators try to figure out how to make virtual and blended learning work. I imagine that necessity is driving innovation in other areas as well. 

Seeing Flaws in Our Systems: People who depend on their low-paying jobs for their healthcare are either showing up when sick (e.g., Smithfield plant) or losing health coverage. Many CEOs and Presidents and other leaders have made it explicitly clear that they care more about money than they do about the health of the people who toil to enrich them. The pandemic is a stressor that helps us see the flaws in our systems. It doesn't point the way to fixing them, but understanding that something is broken is the first step.

None of these silver linings provide succor to those who have lost loved ones or businesses or jobs or security or comfort. As a society, I am hopeful that we will make changes to our mindsets, relationships, and systems so the legacy of the pandemic will include some good outcomes.

Toxicity vs. The Echo Chamber

First of all, I'd like to apologize to people I have judged. 

I've seen friends say that they are purging their fb feeds of people they no longer want to see. I have respected their choices, but a small part of me often thought "but I value diversity in my feed, and don't want an echo chamber." I have some Trump supporters in my feed, and I have made a conscious effort to keep that diversity. Still, I shouldn't have judged.

Most of the time, it's just fine. We can exchange barbs:

• Benghazi vs. Ukraine
• "Deplorables" vs. "Grab them by the p***y"
• Bloated government vs. The widening wealth gap
• The 2nd amendment is sacred (except the well-regulated militia clause) vs. Gun deaths

The list goes on and on, and it's fine. I value the discourse.

Then one acquaintance posted something that struck me as quite racist ... and another acquaintance posted something even worse. That's when I found that I have a line. We can have reasonable discourse about political, economic, and even some social issues. But I will not allow blatant racism, homophobia, sexism, or other hateful speech in my feed. It's just too toxic.

I defend your right to say stupid and offensive things, but I want no part of them in my fb feed. So ... if you say something that I think is marginal, I might (given your past posts) only pause seeing your stuff for 30 days or I might totally unsubscribe from your crap. 

At one point, I had thought to write a full blog entry ripping apart the idiocy and racism of one post and then a separate entry with a title like "Farewell, J---" (and actually name the person). I've decided against both. I'm just unsubscribing from a few people and posting this heads up to others. I value diversity, but I have no interest in toxicity. 

The Tyranny of the Majority, Part 2

So, what other happening made me think about John Stuart Mill's idea of Tyranny of the Majority?

Mrs. Kid is the Vice President of the PTA at Boy Kid's school. Recently, it came to light that the PTA had an odd relationship with a Faith-Based Organization (I'll call them FBO) at the school. In order to make it right, the PTA had to either sever their relationship or formalize it.

Making trouble isn't really Mrs. Kid's general MO, but this situation got her going. Neither of us like organizations that are exclusionary and we are big fans of strong separation of church and state, so when the exclusionary FBO requires that the PTA essentially sign on to their charter, this caused a conflict.

The FBO parents got wind of the controversy and mobilized. There were lots of confrontational emails and meetings. Battle lines were drawn as Mrs. Kid tried to explain all the reasons that the PTA should not sponsor the FBO. Around the country, few schools sponsor the FBO; most sponsors are churches, which makes perfect sense. Note that I have nothing against the FBO. I just choose not to support them and would rather not support any organization that supports them. It's entirely inappropriate for a public school to support them

Eventually, the matter of formalizing the relationship was put to a vote of the PTA, so in the weeks leading up to the vote, scads of FBO folks joined the PTA. Probably 5 times the normal attendance appeared at the meeting (including bunches of members who joined on the same day as the meeting) for the vote to approve signing the FBO's charter. Many of the PTA's leadership were absent from the meeting, but Mrs. Kid stood her ground.

Only three people voted "nay" on the motion: Mrs. Kid and two other brave souls. As a result of this, it looks like we probably won't join the PTA next year and Mrs. Kid will not serve as President.

Boy Kid has no idea that this has been going on, but some day, he should be as proud of his mother as I am. She stood by her principles even though doing so was politically unpopular. She ticked off some of our friends (some kids on Boy Kid's soccer, basketball, and swim teams are members of the FBO) and has ended her relationship with the PTA. I am proud of her and hope our kids can someday learn from her story about standing up for what's right. I am pretty sure that John Stuart Mill would agree with me.

Note that I have avoided my normal level of linking out to pertinent info, but in an earlier post, I provided appropriate links to info about this FBO. Anyone who cares can search the blog for references to them.

The Tyranny of the Majority, Part 1

In his 1859 masterpiece On Liberty, John Stuart Mill lays out an argument for personal liberty and for restraining government's power.

One aspect of Mill's argument that struck me is the tyranny of the majority. The idea is that strong democracy prevents tyranny by a single despotic ruler, but does not prevent the oppression of a minority group by the majority.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread,.... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. (On Liberty, Introduction, Page 3)

So, what made me think about this? Washington, D.C.'s battles with gay rights. Some folks in D.C. wanted to put the city's same-sex marriage law (which was approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor) to a referendum vote.

Ultimately, these people failed. Still, it worried me that they thought they had any chance. The idea that putting something to referendum is always the answer is wrong-headed. John Stuart Mill was talking about just this sort of thing. What if Lincoln had put the Emancipation Proclamation to a referendum vote? What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? When the majority use a referendum to impose their opinions on minority groups, it is morally reprehensible.

Slavery, Colonization, and Divorce: Buddha Nature at Work

In response to a recent post about big government, Jaeger commented that people in African countries that were recently colonies have no drive or pride, while those who live in huts and were not subjected to strong colonization live in mud huts, but have pride and drive.

The people in mud huts have stayed close to their Buddha nature. I know it seems like hokey, new-age stuff, but I really believe that when we get away from our essential nature, things go wrong.

When Africans were brought to America to be slaves, they were separated from their Buddha nature. When whites colonized Africa, they subjugated the indigenous people and separated them from their Buddha nature.

I am not going to go into a long diatribe on the topic of the ramifications of these departures from their Buddha nature. Rather, I think it's worth noting that the separation is a problem.

This plays out in smaller ways as well. For instance, I know some formerly married couples who are now divorced. In most cases, we outside observers thought they were an odd match in one way or another. Essentially, we all saw a disconnect between each individual and who they were trying to be. Most of these people have returned to type and are trying relationships that keep them closer to who they are at a basic level. This is a good thing.

The more we can understand ourselves and strive for careers and relationships that are consistent with who we are at a very elemental level, the more we can make good, stable situations for ourselves.

Mixed Feelings About a Great Man: Norman Borlaug

Norman Borlaug, who passed away recently, was the father of the green revolution. His work to create and make available crops with insanely high yield and great resistance to disease is credited with saving a billion lives and a billion hectares of forest.

He was a great man and a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, but not just because he came up with the method to develop these crops. He was so worthy because he made it his life's work to encourage the use of the technology he developed. He didn't patent it and make a billion dollars off of it.

You might be thinking about the title of this post and wonder "How could anyone have mixed feelings about such an amazing man?" My mixed feelings stem from my concerns about overpopulation. It is great that we can feed so many people, but should we? I know it's easy for me to wonder about this. I have plenty of food. Still, overpopulation is something I think about. Here are some interesting reads about Borlaug:

• New York Times Obit: Norman Borlaug, Plant Scientist Who Fought Famine
• The Examiner's Thomas Fuller: Norman Borlaug, global warming and overpopulation
• Overpopulation.com had a Norman Borlaug Special Issue

He was a great and noble man, but I think it is reasonable to think about the ethical ramifications of our technological advancements.

Against Big Government

A friend recently sent around an email with this quote:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

To which I responded:

"Though I agree with much of the sentiment here, it strikes me as ironic when:

1) some of the same people who probably hailed this quote as worthy a couple years ago proceeded to take billions from the government to save their golden parachutes from financial companies.

2) other people will fight any attempts to stop a gravy train that runs directly (e.g., defense industry) or indirectly (e.g., health care industry) from the government to their yachts, cars, and homes.

Sorry to be a hater, but there are those who have been fortunate and who benefit from a bloated and inefficient government, but don't mind as long as the big government is lining their pockets. They only complain when people they don't hang out with are getting stuff."

I know Mrs. Kid will say this is just another example of me being argumentative. She has heard me argue with both of our staunchly liberal mothers. Relative to them, I can be seen as on the other side of this debate. My mother and mother-in-law probably think I am uber-Republican. Meanwhile, the folks to whom I replied with the email above could think I am a big-government defender. Regardless, I'm OK with being labeled argumentative.

I think that government is inefficient and too big, but I am very cynical. I distrust anybody who has ideas about what should be cut. The people who annoy me the most are people who claim to want limited government, but have made their money from the government. If these people want small government so badly, they can start by giving back their expensive homes and BMW convertibles.

Why Are the Feds in the Marriage Business?

While watching an old episode of Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List on DVR, Mrs. Kid and I heard that there are over a thousand rights that gays are denied because they can't marry. Mrs. Kid mentioned (twice) that she was curious about what the thousand rights are, so I had to find the list.

A GAO memo to the Senate: Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report includes the entire list and this description:

... as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.

So, my initial question was: Why are the feds so tied to marriage? Then I realized that they have no other option. If you want to tie a benefit, right, or privelege to people who are commited to each other in a real and legally-binding way, then the only way to do it in the U.S. is to tie it to marriage.

I want the U.S. federal and state governments to create and recognize civil unions. Without this, we'll keep on having these big problems with people denying rights to gays because they perceive that doing so would have religious implications.

Rats, Blue M&M's, and Ethics

A bit ago, Slashdot had an article titled Dye Used In Blue M&Ms Can Lessen Spinal Injury. Here is a quote from the Slashdot synopsis of the original article:

Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center have found that the dye used in blue M&Ms and other foods can, when given intravenously to a lab rat shortly after a spinal injury, minimize secondary damage caused by the body when it kills off nearby healthy cells.

As usual, the article is somewhat interesting, but the comments that followed are where the real fun is.

Query in one comment:

Are rats less deserving of our sympathies than "intelligent" humans?

Someone's reply:

Are these humans lawyers, music industry executives, or Microsoft programmers? Context is key.

I understand that saving human lives is really important, but I am wary of getting cavalier about what we do to other animals in the name of progress. I'm not sure how this relates to my stance on eating meat, but disliking sport hunting and maim and release fishing. Killing animals to eat them is a totally different thing from hurting them for sport, but scientific research seems to be in a more ambiguous place. The potential for benefit to humans is great, but the cruelty seems great as well.

I'm not about to join PETA, but I hope the people who perform and benefit from this sort of research think about the terrible things these animals have been subjected to for our benefit.

Sea Kittens

PETA has a new campaign called Save the Sea Kittens. When I mentioned it to some folks at work, they thought I was kidding, but it's for real. It even played a part on the comics page.

then

As I've said before, I am not a vegetarian and I have no problem with hunting for food, but sport hunting (yes, even fishing) seems cruel to me.

Still, calling fish "Sea Kittens" and hoping that will get people to stop eating fish is a bit over the edge. If it gets people to think of fish as other animals and makes them think again about the idea of catch-and-release fishing (which I call maim and release), then that's fine, but I'm afraid that the impact will do more to bring ridicule to PETA's efforts.

Jack Bauer and Our Torture Problem

In Day of Reckoning, Peter Finn discusses the Fox show 24 and particularly its portrayal of torture. Jane Mayer's piece in the New Yorker Whatever It Takes is a deep look at 24 that is a longer, but worthwhile read.

I like 24. I yell at the TV every time someone else acts like a "Stupid Kim." There are always a few Stupid Kims every year, so I get to yell once or twice each episode.

Another major device the producers use to keep things moving along is torture. Any time some good person needs information from a bad person, they use physical coercion to get answers. Punches are thrown. Guns are pushed into temples. Oxygen tubes are blocked. Torture is always tried and it almost always works.

This plot device is part of the problem with torture. I know that if you put a gun to my head and asked me for any information that would save my family or that would save my life without endangering my family, I would sing like a bird. I'm weak, so it's easy to imagine that everyone is weak. I would sing. Bad guys on 24 sing. It's clear: torture is effective. The only debate should be about when and how this last resort should be used.

There are two problems with this:

• First, the baddest of the bad guys are not weak. They are willing to kill and be killed (maybe at the same time) for their cause. The bad guys can deal with torture and their zealotry helps them endure whatever their enemies want to dish out. They can even lie to the torturers just to point them in a wasteful direction.
  
• Second, not everyone who is tortured has the information the torturer wants from them. This won't stop them from confessing just to end the torture, but doesn't make any information gleaned from such sessions helpful.

In 24, the bad guys are just about always weak and they always have the information. Torture and coercion work on 24 and that is part of our torture problem.

Outlook Recap: Healthcare Myths and Torture

Here are a couple gems from recent editions of The Washington Post's Outlook section:

5 Myths About Our Ailing Health-Care System is a very concise list of misconceptions about the US healthcare system. It foreshadowed this longer article. Our healthcare system is terrible. Too many people are not covered and we don't do a good enough job preventing problems. As a country, we spend more money on healthcare than any other country, but we don't get the return on investment we should be getting. I don't think we need to spend more. I actually think we could pay less and get more. The system is broken.

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq is by a former US military interrogator (writing under a pseudonym). This made me think back to one of my earlier posts: Mixed Feelings About Omar Khadr's Gitmo Interrogation and some articles I have read on the topic of torture's efficacy. Torture is bad. It isn't just bad because it's morally reprehensible. Many people who are tortured don't deserve to be treated nicely. Many of them are bad, dangerous people. When I condemn torture, I am not saying that these people deserve better treatment; I condemn torture because it is ineffective. Worse, I agree with the author of the Post article: Torture helps create enemies.

Soapbox: Pro-Life Often Means Pro-Some Lives

In this blog, I have generally avoided really controversial issues. One exception is my stand against the death penalty, but generally I have tried to avoid most of the big social controversies. Now to reveal my true crotchety nature. I'm sorry if this means that I will alienate people, but what can I say: I gotta be me. If you disagree with me or see a hole in one of my arguments, then please point it out. I am a fan of the dialectic.

Something about the abortion and death penalty debates has always bugged me.

There are people who call themselves pro-life, but still are pro-death penalty and many of those are also pro-war. OK, I know that few people are really "pro-war", but many people are fans of our military going around the world and killing in the name of freedom or oppression. Note that the Republican party platform is explicitly pro-life and pro-death penalty. Here are a couple quotes from the Republican Party Platform:

• Courts must have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases and other instances of heinous crime.
• Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.
  

So, here is my problem: How can anyone who fights abortion because of "the sanctity of all human life" turn around and defend having the government kill people? My guess: The difference is that the unborn are potential converts, while killers and "evil" people in other countries are not people they want to convert. If all human life has sanctity, then that's it. It shouldn't matter whose life we are talking about.

I know that some will say that those who kill have given up their right to life, but if that right is sacred, then I submit that no human can decide that it has been given up. Note also that I think any Christian will agree that we are all sinful. As I recall, that's kinda the point of Jesus, baptism, and confession. So, there is no question about whether people are sinful; we all are, but I don't really want to go down that particular rabbit hole unless someone drags me there.

"Pro-Life" is an inaccurate label for anyone who is in favor of the death penalty or thinks that war is ever justified. I suggest that we use "Pro-Some Lives" or "Pro-Potential Convert" instead. Note that I have a similar issue with pro-choice people who say they are strict pacifists.

If there is ever a time when a life can be taken, then it makes sense to me that the battle between life and choice/freedom is one with some gray areas.

Thoughts?

Soapbox: Marriage Should Not Be the Government's Business

I thought I had written about this before, but as I searched through past posts, I couldn't find any evidence of it. Perhaps I have talked about this topic so often that I have written about it in my mind.

California's Proposition 8 has effectively shut down gay marriage in the state. Many gay people are mad about it and I sympathize with their frustration over not having the same rights as heterosexual couples, but my solution to the problem is not the same one many people want to see.

I am against government recognizing gay marriage, but then again I am against the government recognizing heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not the government's business. I'd rather see us go to a European system where churches marry people, while the government only deals with civil unions. Note: I am not talking about civil unions for gays and marriage for straights. I'm talking about a complete separation for everyone.

Civil unions should be allowed for any committed couple. Whatever rights the government currently confers through marriage should instead be conferred through civil union and should not be subject to any religious interpretation or filter.

Marriage is a religious thing. If one religion decides that marriage can only be between two people of the opposite gender, while another decides that marriage is only between people of the same gender, while a third religion says marriage is only between sheep and Swingline staplers, then more power to them all. What do I care? I don't want the government telling religions what to do any more than I want religious views being put into our government. All committed couples should have the same rights before the law.

Note that my argument is essentially a semantic one. I truly believe that the biggest problem with gay marriage is that the word "marriage" means different things to different people. To many religious people, "marriage" is a sacrament. To others, "marriage" is an institution through which government and other non-religious institutions confer civil rights. Both groups are right, but are talking about different types of marriage. I think it would help if we referred to the latter as "civil union."

Thoughts?

A Church's Enlightened View Toward Darwin

The Church of England has issued an apology to Charles Darwin. Good Religion Needs Good Science is a nice essay about the relationship between two of the strongest forces in human society.

The apology is pretty unambiguous:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.

But Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown makes several other good points in the essay such as describing ways in which Darwin's ideas have been misapplied in the past. Kudos to the Anglicans for confronting this issue so directly.

No More Maim and Release

OK, so maybe the Swiss have gone a bit far, but I like some of their ideas. All Swiss animals are equal - but some more so than others describes a new Swiss law that describes how wild and domestic animals are to be treated. I am not a fan of legislating morality, but I like the idea of getting some of these concepts out there in the public discourse.

I have never been comfortable with catch and release fishing (which I call maim and release.) It's hard for me to believe that getting a hook through their cheek and getting pulled out of the water is fun or healthy for them. Hunting and fishing for sustenance are both totally cool by me. Anyone who eats what he kills is OK by me (as long as it was an honorable, legal kill that inflicted as little stress as reasonable), but killing or wounding for fun or a trophy seems sick.

The folks at PETA might go a bit far at times, but they make some points that make sense. We are higher up on the food chain, but that means we should be more civilized in the way we treat other animals.