rss

Category: Social justice

0
By Erich Vieth on November 17th, 2009

The Charter for Compassion: simple kind-hearted affirmation of others

Karen Armstrong’s “Charter for Compassion” is a new and eloquent re-affirmation of the golden rule. Her Charter is not based upon any particular religious tradition. Rather, it is based on the recognition that compassion (the golden rule) is the centerpiece for all worthy moral systems. Armstrong, formerly a nun was recently interviewed by Bill Moyers, and had this to say:

[T]his is the beginning of something. We’re writing a charter which we hope will be sort of like the charter of human rights, two pages only. Saying that compassion is far more important than belief. That it is the essence of religion. All the traditions teach that it is the practice of compassion and honoring the sacred in the other that brings us into the presence of what we call God, Nirvana, Raman, or Tao. And people are remarkably uneducated about compassion these days. So we want to bring it back to the center of attention. But then, it’s got to be incarnated into practical action.

. . . Compassion doesn’t mean feeling sorry for people. It doesn’t mean pity. It means putting yourself in the position of the other, learning about the other. Learning what’s motivating the other, learning about their grievances. So the Charter of Compassion was to recall compassion from the sidelines, to which it’s often put in religious discourse and put it back there.

I do believe that this type of approach is sorely needed in the modern world. We need an approach that can be embraced by every good-hearted person, religious or not. This Charter is something simple enough and powerful enough to combat the egoism, arrogant intellectualism, arrogant religions, consumerism and xenophobia that are screwing up so many of us.

Good and Evil • Religion • Social justice
Full Story
1
By Mark Tiedemann on October 18th, 2009

Rage and Injustice

When people ask why laws must be changed to protect behavior that seems “outside” social norms, it can sometimes be difficult to make the point that rights must accrue to individuals and their choices or they mean nothing. So when a woman is stoned in some backwater country for adultery (whether she is in fact married or not) or a young girl has her clitoris snipped off without having any say in the matter or when a child is allowed to die from a treatable illness because his or her parents believe that only prayer can save them or when people are denied basic civil rights because they don’t play the social game the same way as everyone else or—

If this were an issue of a racially mixed marriage, everyone would be aware and outraged. In this case it is not, it is a lesbian couple with children, who suffered a dual outrage—the first being denial of partner’s rights at the hospital where one perished and the second being the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the survivor against those who callously disregarded their basic humanity. The assumption by strangers that because they didn’t fit some cookie-cutter definition of Normal that their fundamental humanity could be abridged in a life and death situation is not something that is redressable other than by law, because without a law people will make up any old justification to be assholes. And without a law, the rest of us will let them get away with it.

Read the story. Be outraged. But do not be silent.

American Culture • Bigotry • Civil Rights • Court Decisions • Culture • Current Events • Featured • Law • Meaning of Life • Quality of Life • Social justice • children • ignorance
Full Story
2
By Erich Vieth on October 18th, 2009

The nasty brutish “Darwinism” concocted by I-don’t-give-a-crap free-marketers

Many conservatives have a “hate-love relation with biology.” Primatologist Frans De Waal terms this “the first great paradox of the American political landscape” in his new book, The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. In this new book, De Waal has produced another tome of lively writing and thoughtful analysis, reminding us of our exquisite human animal roots. He is out to set the record straight on a gnawing social issue: too many people invoke “evolution” to justify treating each other in contemptuous ways. This has got to stop, because this modern version of “Social Darwinism” paints a highly selective and distorted view of the kind of animals we humans are based on a wildly inaccurate distortion of how natural selection works.

Although I am not even halfway into De Waal’s book, I can see that De Waal has launched a sustained broadside against the commonly expressed perspective that evolutionary theory equates to “social Darwinism,” an approach embraced by many conservatives. The idea of social Darwinism is that “those who make it [successfully in life] shouldn’t let themselves be dragged down by those who don’t.” The idea was championed by British political philosopher Herbert Spencer in the 19th century. Spencer “decried attempts to equalize society’s playing field,” and said of the poor that “the whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better.” De Waal comments that the business world fully embraces this idea and characterizes competition as a “law of biology” that will improve the human race. We thus have “the second great paradox of the American political landscape”:

Whereas the book found in most American homes and every hotel room urges us on almost every page to show compassion, social Darwinists scoff at such feelings, which only keep major from running its course. Poverty is dismissed as proof of laziness, and social justice as a weakness. Why not simply let the poor perish?

Many of these conservatives embrace the metaphor of the invisible hand, arguing that this invisible hand “will take care of society’s woes.” De Waal notes, however, “the invisible hand . . . did nothing to prevent the appalling survival-of-the-greatest scenes in New Orleans” following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly. Rather, we have also evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other. Not that we always look out for each other admirably, but there is plenty of reason to conclude that human animals are highly social in an empathetic way. Keep this book handy for the next time someone claims that they don’t need to care about people who are struggling to make it because nature is “dog eat dog.” That approach to life is a cop-out; it is certainly not justified by Darwin’s work.

Community • Cultural Evolution • Evolution • Featured • Good and Evil • Human animals • Meaning of Life • Social justice
Full Story
10
Let the free market take care of all of our problems - except for our houses
By Erich Vieth on October 15th, 2009

Let the free market take care of all of our problems - except for our houses

A couple days ago, I saw this video of Sen. Lindsey Graham, a conservative senator from South Carolina, being pummeled by members of the “tea party.” The problem is that he is apparently not conservative enough.

You can hear the first questioner recommending that we basically dismantle the entire federal government to allow the “free market” to solve all our problems. It’s amazing to hear how prevalent this viewpoint is. I often hear it from conservative acquaintances, that government is in the way that the free market will take care of us much like God will take care of us, if only we would stop trying to help ourselves and just let good things happen. There is much evidence that this “free market fundamentalism” is pie in the sky, and it is also a dangerous way to think. And see this analysis and here.

The idea of free market fundamentalists, that good things will simply happen in a systematic way is based upon a huge mistaken assumption that all people are selfish and rational and that this selfish rationality will drive the system in a coherent way. This guiding principle of widespread rational selfishness is often referred to as homo economicus. Also consider that regulation, formal or otherwise, is prevalent throughout nature.

This week, I had two experiences which served as powerful evidence to me that people are not necessarily rational or selfish. Both of these situations involve houses, which are typically the single largest investment made by most people.
[More . . .]

American Culture • Culture • Friendships/relationships • Good and Evil • Meaning of Life • Science • Social justice
Full Story
0
By Erich Vieth on October 09th, 2009

Alan Grayson still not apologizing

Grayson is a fresh voice I enjoy hearing.

I especially agree with Grayson’s point that we need to do something about 120 needless deaths every day. If 120 people died in a plane crash each day for a week, we’d take action and revamp the aviation system. So why do we allow 120 people die each day due to lack of health insurance?

I’m not suggesting that I’m happy with the proposals that I’ve heard so far. I don’t want a system that shovels lots of tax dollars to for-profit health insurance companies to insure a relatively small number of new people. And I’m frustrated that we aren’t talking clearly in terms of how much reform would cost, who would pay it and how much coverage it would provide. We can’t afford heart transplants for everyone, right? So what level of health coverage should we guarantee and how are we going to pay for it? In plain English, please. Without all of the backroom deals. And not passed 12 hours after the public release of a 2,000 page bill loaded with special favors. Let’s talk out in the open like adults. Or is that not possible anymore?

Health • Health Care Reform • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Social justice
Full Story
5
Nader in Omaha
By Brynn Jacobs on October 01st, 2009

Nader in Omaha

Tuesday afternoon, I was privileged to be able to attend a speech by Ralph Nader, followed by a question-and-answer session and a book-signing. He was promoting his new book, Only the Super-rich can save us! If you weren’t aware that he has a new book out, you aren’t alone. In fact, his presence in Omaha wasn’t well-publicized. I managed to see this article in the local paper which alerted me to both the fact that he had a new book out, and that he was in Omaha. I was fortunate enough to be able to arrange for some time off work, and went to the 3:00 session at McFoster’s Natural-Kind Cafe. Unfortunately, I completely forgot my role as a blogger and so I was woefully unprepared to take notes or photos. So rather than direct quotes, I’ll discuss some of the main themes of his speech, as well as the question-and-answer session.

Nader was scheduled to speak at 3:00 p.m., but didn’t actually take the podium until about 3:15, largely due to the enthusiastic crowd gathered around him peppering him with questions and having their books signed. He spoke for about a half-hour, then took questions for roughly another hour. I estimated the crowd to number about 80, and it was standing-room only in the small upstairs room at McFoster’s. His speech stuck pretty closely to the themes of the book, which asks us to re-imagine the last several years. The book begins with the disastrous fumbling of Hurricane Katrina, and a fictionalized Warren Buffet aghast at the apparent inability of a former first-world country to provide relief to its own citizens. Using his vast economic resources, he marshals the needed supplies and delivers them to a devastated New Orleans. The experience haunts him though, and he decides to convene a group of billionaires to solve some of the most pressing crises confronting American democracy. Using untold billions of their own, they are able to finally provide an effective foil against the big-money interests that would continue using the system to unjustly enrich themselves.

American Culture • Featured • Politics • Reading - Books and Magazines • Social justice
Full Story
0
By Mark Tiedemann on September 30th, 2009

Too Many Rooms, Too Few Doors

That poor guy who got tied to a tree in Kentucky was on my mind last week.

Census takers have, in certain parts of the country, been lumped in with so-called “revenooers” (to use Snuffy Smith jargon) and generally threatened, shot at, occasionally killed by folks exercising their right to be separate. So they assume. Appalachia, the Ozarks, parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, Texas…a lot of pockets, populated by people who have, for many reasons, acquired a sense of identity apart from the mainstream, and who feel imposed upon if the gov’ment so much as notices their existence. They’d have a point if they truly did maintain a separate existence, but they don’t, and hypocrisy is the least amendable vice to reason. At one time it was bootlegging, today it’s drugs, either marijuana or meth. They don’t seem to get it that if they contribute to the erosion of the public weal then they forfeit the “right” to be left alone. I really believe they don’t understand this simple equation.

Nor, in fact, do they care.

But do I believe that poor man was killed over some disagreement over political hegemony? No. He knocked on the wrong door at the wrong time and asked the wrong question and some good ol’ boys killed him. Scrawling “Fed” on his chest was probably an afterthought, and means about as much as had they written “Cop” or “Fag” or “Stranger.” Whoever did it probably thought he was being cute.

[more . . .]

American Culture • Culture • Current Events • Featured • Good and Evil • Psychology Cognition • Social justice • ignorance • law and order
Full Story
0
By Dan Klarmann on September 28th, 2009

Womens Rights in the 21st Century

I found a fascinating post on one of the blogs I regularly read: Weekend Diversion: An Amazing Group of Women. It is mostly about the Asgarda women of the Ukraine, a small group of (mostly young) women working for the rights of women in an environment plagued with sex trafficking and other abuses of women, Eastern Europe. There is also a video of Loudon Wainwright singing “Daughter”. Well worth clicking over to hear the song and see pictures of essentially a modern tribe of Amazons.

Meanwhile, I wondered if the United States is the only nation in which there are so many groups of women actively protesting against rights for women. Like Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, who worked diligently to persuade women to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment, and continue to agitate to prevent any laws from passing that explicitly give women protections already enjoyed by men.

Pro Life groups are also essentially anti-women’s rights, and largely manned by women. It is basically a matter of whether the government or a women may legally decide who or what may live within her body and what may be expelled. Men already have this protection, granted by their reproductively deficient bodies allowing them to claim any foreign internal organism as a hostile alien.

American Culture • Civil Rights • Communication • Current Events • Health • Noteworthy • Reproductive Rights • Social justice • Web Site • ignorance
Full Story
15
The ACORN hypocrisy
By Brynn Jacobs on September 23rd, 2009

The ACORN hypocrisy

Over the past few weeks, videotapes have been trickling out that purport to show ACORN employees offered tax advice to those seeking to engage in child prostitution or other salacious activities. Having viewed the tapes, it’s obvious that they have been edited extensively, and that alone should make one wonder what the original tapes may show. Further, Media Matters has a lengthy critique of the credibility of the conservative activists and the manufactured news story that they have created, including failing to report that in at least one instance police were called and the filmmakers were removed from the premises after inquiring about underage prostitution. But really, whether ACORN employees did or did not do everything they are accused of is a side issue.

The Huffington Post yesterday pointed out that the legislative zeal to cut off funding for ACORN may have created an even bigger problem: it may eliminate the entire military-industrial complex. You see, the legislation prohibits federal funding or promotion of organizations that, among other things, “has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency”. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) maintains a database of companies holding federal contracts that also have “histories of misconduct such as fraud” that would ostensibly bar them from receiving any further governmental funding under the “Defund ACORN Act”. Top violators include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grummond, Raytheon, KBR (former Halliburton subsidiary)…. and a staggering number of other large corporations doing business with the federal government. House Republican leader John Boehner released a statement congratulating house Republicans for all they “have done to hold ACORN accountable for its abuse of taxpayer dollars and the public trust.” One wonders whether he will hold these other corporations to the same standard that they require of ACORN? After all, the scale of the violations by the weapons industry dwarfs anything ACORN is accused of. For fiscal year 2007, Lockheed Martin had federal contracts valued at $34.2 billion (with a b) dollars, and the cost of their misconduct since 1995 is valued at $577.2 million. ACORN has only received $53 million in federal funds since 1994, and none of the allegations show any actual harm was done to the government. In other words, Lockeed Martin has committed fraud to the tune of over 10 times the total amount of federal funding ACORN has received.

American Culture • Fraud • Social justice • hypocrisy
Full Story
0
By Erich Vieth on September 15th, 2009

Garrison Keillor describes his stroke

What’s it like to have a stroke, then get really lucky? Garrison Keillor tells it like only Garrison Keillor can tell it:

[A] neurologist shook my hand and said: “I hope you know how lucky you are.” That was pretty clear as I walked down the hall, towing my IV tower, and saw the casualties of serious strokes. Here I was sashaying along, like a survivor of Pickett’s Last Charge who had suffered a sprained wrist.

What’s it like to get world class treatment for your stroke when you have a strong sense of social justice?

Rich or poor, young or old, we all face the injustice of life — it ends too soon, and statistical probability is no comfort. We are all in the same boat, you and me and ex-Gov. Palin and Rep. Joe Wilson, and wealth and social status do not prevail against disease and injury. And now we must reform our health insurance system so that it reflects our common humanity. It is not decent that people avoid seeking help for want of insurance. It is not decent that people go broke trying to get well. You know it and I know it. Time to fix it.

Health • Medicine • Social justice
Full Story
5
By Mark Tiedemann on September 15th, 2009

Ideology Be Damned!

This is the reason we need healthcare reform in this country. Crystal Lee Sutton has died at age 68 because her insurance company diddled and dawdled over whether or not it would pay for the medicine necessary to save her life.

Don’t know who Crystal Lee Sutton was? She was the real-life inspiration for Norma Rae, Sally Fields’ excellent portrayal of a small-town union organizer who went to bat for workers’ rights.

This kind of thing should not happen. When profit—or overhead, however you wish to consider the problem—is placed ahead of life, those arguing against reform should hang their heads in shame. They cling to an ideology about free markets and consumer choice as though such things are part of the Ten Commandments (which most of them don’t follow either) and always at the expense of lives.

Dammit, people, we’re talking about a system which should operate for people’s benefit, not for its own. A system is simply a method of approach, a way of doing something, and if it can be changed once, it can be changed again if the reforms are found insufficient! It is no argument to reject reforms on the basis that the reforms might cause harm, since the present system is already causing harm.

It is a foulness to our present system that many people find that in order to vouchsafe their own health or the health of their loved ones they must fight for the very thing they were told they had purchased in the first place. This is in no way different from lending predators who lied to people in course of borrowing money to buy a home. The average person has neither the time or expertise to understanding every clause and addendum in a complex contract and must rely on what he or she is told. Either you have insurance coverage or you do not. It should not come as a surprise after you are already sick and discover that there are codicils which protect the insurance company from having to pay out what in principle they obligated themselves to do if not by the letter of the policy then by the spirit of agreement with a customer. Yet thousands, millions of consumers daily learn to their dismay that they don’t actually have what they thought they had bought.

This is not a game. If the private sector is more concerned over profit margins than providing service, then they should lose the privilege of offering said service.

American Culture • Civil Rights • Consumerism • Current Events • Economy • Featured • Health • Politics • Social justice • snake oil
Full Story
23
Scalia’s thought process: “Well, he probably did something else wrong anyway.”
By Erich Vieth on September 14th, 2009

Scalia’s thought process: “Well, he probably did something else wrong anyway.”

Way back in 1989, I happened to be watching Episode Two of a PBS series entitled “Ethics in America.” It was a terrific 10-part series that considered compelling topics in ethics. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a participant in Episode Two. You can see all of the episodes, including Episode Two here (click on the little “VoD” button next to Episode 2). You might be wondering how I could possibly remember a particular comment from a particular episode from 20 years ago. I do remember: it was burned into my memory because it was so utterly bizarre.

At about the 31-minute mark, the moderator (Charles Ogletree, Jr.) posed a hypothetical. What if you were an attorney and your client told you that he committed a murder a couple years ago? The clear answer is that the attorney-client privilege protects that admission; if you were that man’s attorney, you could not tell anyone else what your client told you in the course of your consultation with him.

Things got much more interesting, as the moderator elaborated on the hypothetical. Assume that your client tells you that after he committed the murder, the police erroneously arrested the wrong man. Further, assume that man has been found guilty by a jury and he is scheduled to be executed. As the attorney, what can you do to protect the life of an innocent man who is about to be executed for a crime committed by your own client who is confessing his guilt to you?

This is a tough issue, right? At the moment where the moderator indicated that the innocent man was about to be executed for a crime he didn’t commit, Justice Scalia spoke up: “Well, he probably did something else wrong anyway.” You can see and hear this statement for yourself at 31:50 in the video. Although I’m certain that Justice Scalia would claim that his utterance was a “joke,” (after all, other participants laughed), it makes you wonder, especially in light of a recent case decided by the United States Supreme Court, In re Davis.

Civil Rights • Court Decisions • Featured • Law • Social justice • law and order
Full Story
1
By Brynn Jacobs on September 03rd, 2009

Guess this author

The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems. See if you can guess who authored this quotation on capitalism vs. socialism: (all emphases are mine)

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist.

American Culture • Campaign Finance Reform • Consumerism • Cultural Evolution • Current Events • Economy • Education • History • Human animals • Politics • Quotes • Social justice
Full Story
Older Entries