Hunger and Hypocrisy

Peter Singer offered this challenge in the Oct/Nov issue of Free Inquiry (not available on-line):

Imagine that you are walking through a park past a shallow ornamental pond, and you notice that a child has fallen into that pond and seems to be in danger of drowning. You look around for the parents or the babysitter, but there is no one in sight. What should you do? Obviously, you should rush into the pond and save the life of the child. But wait a minute--you are wearing your most expensive shoes, and you don't have time to kick them off. They will be ruined if you go into the pond with them on. Do your shoes make a difference in your decision? Everyone agrees that they don't. You can't let a pair of shoes mean more than a child's life. So how about giving just the cost of an expensive pair of shoes to an organization that is saving lives in developing countries? I don't think it is any different than saving the child in the shallow pond. Yes, it is different psychologically but not morally. Distance doesn't make someone's life less valuable.
Singer's implicit assumption is that your dollars are fungible. When you spend a dollar on a luxury, it is dollar that you could have spent to save the life of a dying child. In other words, dollars don't come pre-categorized such that some dollars can only be spent on luxuries. You cannot escape this logic. Therefore, If Jesus (or whatever God you might believe in) were watching, you closely, and you knew it, you couldn't possibly pay $300 for a pair of shoes when perfectly adequate $100 shoes were also available and when you knew (as you always do know) that the other $200 could be used to save the lives of innocent children. I get frustrated with those who think that the commandment "Do not kill" is not being violated by those who spend excessive money on fancy clothes, cars or houses (or buy any luxury) in the same world where children are dying every day and those deaths are preventable. That said, I don't think that "Do not kill" is a workable rule. It rings nicely to simple ears because it is phrased uncategorically, but we really need a new rule that recognizes that we are not exactly a nation of murderers when we buy a steady stream of unnecessary luxuries (especially at Christmas time), but it's something like that when we completely unhinge our consciences from our wallets, which so many of us in sanctimonious American do almost every day. I don't really know how to articulate such a rule, but I do want to take this moment to recognize this undeniable fact as part of my "Life is Real" campaign: Every day, most of us in American choose to buy things with dollars that could be used for saving the lives of real children. That's the way things are down here on planet Earth, and going around claiming that "Do not kill" only means don't shoot or stab innocent people doesn't change things one bit.

Continue ReadingHunger and Hypocrisy

Matt Taibbi discusses how the media makes and breaks politicians

Yes, the media makes and breaks politicians. They tell us who the "serious" politicians are before the race has even begun, and it always seems to be about who can raise money. At his blog, Matt Taibbi writes thoughtfully about this issue of the way the media caricatures politicians:

The political media has always taken it upon itself to make decisions about who is and who is not qualified to be taken seriously as candidates for higher office. Without even talking about whether they do this more or less to Republicans or Democrats, I can testify that I witnessed this phenomenon over and over again in the primary battles within the Democratic Party. It has always been true that the press corps has drawn upon internalized professional biases, high-school-style groupthink and the urging of insider wonks to separate candidates into “serious” and “unserious” groups before the shots even start to be fired.
Taibbi's post then morphs into some observations about Sarah Palin, who has constantly complained that she is not being treated fairly by "the liberal press."

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi discusses how the media makes and breaks politicians

Life is real

After a business meeting in Boston last week, I had two extra hours before I needed to head to the airport. I decided to visit a few historical sites on foot by following Boston’s “Freedom Trail.” At one end of the trail is the “Old North Church,” from which the patriots displayed two lanterns to give warning that the British were about to attack “by sea.” As I was approaching the Old North Church, I had an odd thought: The Old North Church really exists. It’s not just part of a concocted story like Harry Potter. You can walk up and touch the bricks and feel the history in your fingertips. You can trace the history of the church through hundreds of authentic letters and other writings. You can say with great confidence that the Old North Church played a real-life role the Revolutionary War. Because I am a lawyer and a writer, I spend a lot of time thinking of abstract ideas. For that reason, I often need to remind myself about some of the many parts of life that really happened. Maybe I also need to remind myself that some things are really real because entertainment has become such a central part of our lives. When Americans get together, they often bond by discussing television shows and movies. These works of fictions are so often discussed that they seem to rise to the level of "facts." But our world mostly depends on real events that dramatically affect our lives. On the flight back home from Boston, I started thinking of some of the other amazing things that actually play critical roles in our lives. They aren’t just stories in history books or science books. For instance, World War II really occurred. It wasn’t just a movie. There are cemeteries filled with the bodies of the soldiers that died in that war. Consider also, the importance of large-scale immigration to the United States over the past centuries. Without that mass movement of people to the United States, most of us wouldn’t have been born. The scale and the details of many real life events are more amazing than anything any fiction writer could conjure up. Here are some other important facts that I am generally amazed at whenever I take the time to remind myself that these aren't simply stories: * The Greeks really built an extraordinary civilization, as did the Maya and the Egyptian. These aren't just yarns spun by museums and authors. * We’re floating in space and there are stars under our feet too. * The sun is a giant furnace that really does light and heat the earth, and someday the sun won’t exist. * The universe is expanding in rapidly in such a way as to suggest a Big Bang, which was a time when there was no Earth and no living things. * Human beings are animals, and we run in large flocks. 40% of our DNA matches the DNA of lettuce. * All living things are related. * We don’t have any credible users’ manual for living life on earth. * We are far from rational beings. * Despite its unfathomable complexity, including the fact that it is constituted of many billions of cells, the human body works. * Almost all human cognition is subconscious and it is driven largely by emotions, addictions and instincts. * There really are 7 billion people on our planet and we are rapidly exhausting the planet’s resources. I often need to remind myself of these things. I get too distracted by day-to-day aspects of my life, which causes me to take all too many things for granted. Thus, I need to remind myself that much of the world around us is really real, not just a story. This is almost embarrassing to admit, but I often enrich my life by consciously acknowledging the obvious.

Continue ReadingLife is real

On helicopter parenting

Many parents are starting to wake up to the insanity of "helicopter parenting," always striving to hover over their children, even as they get to be teenagers, in order to protect them from largely-imagined evils and to push them to be hyper-competitive. Helicopter parenting takes many forms, including over-scheduling children with enrichment activities and classes and fretting at each and every indication that a child is less than perfect. When I was a child, I was fortunate that my parents sent me off to take guitar lessons for a half-hour per week. I appreciated that opportunity. Other than that one activity, though, I was pretty much on my own. I played a bit of soccer in grade school, but my parents almost never went to the games or practices, nor did I expect them too. Nor did most other parents attend most of of the games. There were no such things as "select" leagues, where parents would convince themselves that their child was the next Pele, justifying three games every weekend in far flung locations, some of them out-of-state. As a child, I was allowed considerable time to do whatever I wanted, or to do nothing at all. When I was in the mood to play sports, it was usually a pick-up game, where the children knocked on doors to round up other players, choose the teams, gather their own bats and balls, officiated their own disputes and tend to their own minor injuries. During the summer we sometimes played sports most of the day, yet there were no parents anywhere to be seen. We were allowed to make lots of mistakes, thus allowing us to really learn many things, including how to really understand other people. This was a refreshingly wonderful way to handle things, when looking in retrospect. This was much better than having 20 parents each driving one-hour round trips to watch their 15 fourth graders play 50 minutes of officially refereed soccer. To be sure, I think that team sports can be a good thing. It's all the hovering parents that seems creepy. If most of the parents had shown up and shouted constant encouragement at my games as a 10-year old, I wouldn't have felt loved--I would have wondered what was wrong with all of them. After all, it's only a game, especially for young children. Whenever you find middle or upper class families these days, things are entirely different than they were for me. Many parents simply won't leave their kids alone; they are too terrified that if left to their own, their children will lose their competitive edges and miss out on the best college, the best job, or the best spouse. The schools that are "good" are too often those that dump several hours of daily homework on small children. Children are too often deemed to need special camps and tutoring, instead of allowing them to explore such things as cooking in their own kitchens and critters in their own back yards (or nearby creek), on their own. And the whole sordid phenomenon of helicopter parenting is thoroughly permeated with rampant consumerism. Image by Troon Lifeboat (creative commons) This week, Time Magazine has taken on helicopter parents in an impressively detailed article titled "The Growing Backlash Against Overparenting." One of the people featured in the Time article is Lenore Skenazy, who advocates "Free Range Kids.":

[T]oo many parents, says Skenazy, have the math all wrong. Refusing to vaccinate your children, as millions now threaten to do in the case of the swine flu, is statistically reckless; on the other hand, there are no reports of a child ever being poisoned by a stranger handing out tainted Halloween candy, and the odds of being kidnapped and killed by a stranger are about 1 in 1.5 million. When parents confront you with "How can you let him go to the store alone?," she suggests countering with "How can you let him visit your relatives?" (Some 80% of kids who are molested are victims of friends or relatives.) Or ride in the car with you? (More than 430,000 kids were injured in motor vehicles last year.) "I'm not saying that there is no danger in the world or that we shouldn't be prepared," she says. "But there is good and bad luck and fate and things beyond our ability to change. The way kids learn to be resourceful is by having to use their resources." Besides, she says with a smile, "a 100%-safe world is not only impossible. It's nowhere you'd want to be."
In the Time article, you can read that there has been a 25% drop in playtime (for 6-to-8 year olds) from 1981 to1997, while the amount of homework has doubled. As Sting sings, if you love them, you've got to set them free. Otherwise, they'll never learn to think for themselves and they'll never turn be allowed to turn into the persons they were destined to become. Because the central message of helicopter parenting is that you don't trust your children, helicopter parenting is a better way to ruin your child than to help your child. It's a way to prevent your children from learning by playing, failing and then playing and failing some more. It's a way to stifle cognitive development, by stealing play time from them. It too often seems that all of this attention is forced onto children by parents who are working long hours away from their children and trying to make it up by lavishing perfection on their children. Regardless, too many of those who engage in helicopter parenting are not really hovering about for the sake of their children, no matter how much they protest. Rather, as the Time article suggests, they are focused solely on melding trophy children as an attempted display of their own parenting prowess.

Continue ReadingOn helicopter parenting

Use nudity when potentially child-killing chemicals don’t garner enough attention

Back in September, Senator Al Franken and Rep. Steve Israel has introduced the "Household Product Labeling Act," which will enable consumers to determine whether potentially harmful chemicals are present in the household cleaning products they use. Here's the full text of the Senate version of the Act. Here's the problem:

In many households across the country, the entire family pitches in on household cleaning chores. The effort is obviously intended to keep everyone healthy by cutting down on germs, bacteria, and mold. But unfortunately, many of the ingredients in commonly used cleaning products may be dangerous themselves. Current law requires that product labels list immediately hazardous ingredients, but there is no labeling requirement for ingredients that may cause harm over time. Many chemicals contained in household products have been shown to produce harmful health effects. Consumers have a right to know which of these potentially harmful chemicals might be present in their kitchen and bathroom cupboards. This information is particularly important to families with small children, who as we all know have more direct contact with floors and household surfaces. This legislation simply makes that information readily available to consumers, giving them the opportunity to make an informed choice about the chemicals they bring into their homes.
This is an incredibly important bill, because consumers should have a right to know the chemicals to which they are exposing their families (see here for related post). How do you promote a bill when the "mere" sickness and death fail to attract enough attention? A private company called Method decided to shoot this clever (and somewhat provocative) video:

Continue ReadingUse nudity when potentially child-killing chemicals don’t garner enough attention