A Dispatch from Post-Racial America

Rebecca Landry, originally from Lumberton, Texas, comments on Yahoo! news stories:

You can find her on Facebook here.

"What's in it for me?"

In Book II of Plato's Republic, Glaucon presents an argument that justice is good only for the sake of what comes from it, and not for its own sake. That is, those who have a reputation for being just are rewarded, and that's the only thing that makes justice worth doing.

I agree with Socrates that justice is good both for its own sake and for the sake of what comes from it.

I believe Glaucon's argument is based on the following claim:

If a person is motivated to perform an action, then that person must believe that performing that action is in her own self-interest. 

I believe that there are plentiful counterexamples, i.e., cases in which a person is motivated to perform an action, and yet the person does not believe that the action is in her self-interest. Doing what morality requires is often not in our self-interest, and yet those of us who are not sociopaths are strongly motivated to do what morality requires anyway. But most people I talk to can't seem to understand how it could be possible that a person is motivated to do something that is not in her self-interest. Why is that?

Here's a quick and rough speculation. Most people around here are Christians, and Christians are taught to believe that human beings are intrinsically and necessarily flawed creatures. No matter how virtuous we become, we will always be sinful. Sin is turning away from God, and God requires that we love our neighbor. Human beings are incapable of doing God's will perfectly, so even the most virtuous among us will succumb to what Kant called self-love when given a chance to help our fellow human beings. Christianity is so cynical about human nature that it holds that human beings must be bribed to be virtuous. But the promise of heaven merely appeals to self-interest. Christians are taught from the very beginning to wonder about any action, "What's in it for me?"

This might explain how the Republican Party succeeded in uniting certain libertarians and fundamentalist Christians. Because libertarian followers of Ayn Rand ask the very same question: "What's in it for me?" They have the same dreary view of human nature, but they worship it as the pinnacle of human virtue. For them, our only moral obligation is self-interest, and altruism is morally perverse. Since they share this view of human nature, it's not surprising that they are often allies.

This is one area in which atheism does better. An atheist does not do the right thing in the hope that she will be rewarded in the afterlife. Many atheists do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and that's it. There's nothing really mysterious about this to me. It is actually unremarkable. I do not need to be bribed, and I do not need to be rewarded. The mere fact that it is morally wrong to perform a particular action is itself sufficient reason not to do it, and that's that.

P.S. Lesli, I'm disappointed that I can't read your blog anymore. Can we make some kind of arrangement? If the character of your blog has changed and we cannot, that's all right. Please let me know. Thank you.

The Asshole List I

The first assholes on the list are Ayn Rand and her disciples. From NPR:

Ayn Rand is best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The ideas behind them — her philosophy — have sunk so deeply into our political thought, most people don't even recognize them as her ideas anymore. 

But Rand does have important admirers, like House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner channeled Rand when he said, "Job creators in America basically are on strike." 

If Adam Smith had been a sociopath, he would have been Ayn Rand.

The next asshole on the list is Sgt. William Reid of the Coral Springs Police Department. From The Atlantic Wire:

Three members of Herman Cain’s campaign team apologized on Wednesday after a local police officer who said he was there to protect the Republican presidential candidate manhandled a reporter. 

The incident happened when several journalists who have been covering Cain regularly tried to film the candidate as he was returning to his campaign bus after an event here. As the journalists trailed Cain, the officer, who was in plain clothes, blindsided National Journal/CBS News reporter Lindsey Boerma into the side of the campaign bus. Moments later, as journalists circled around the bus toward Cain, the same man stuck his arm out and clotheslined Boerma.  

The man refused to identify himself. He implied he was a police officer when he suggested that one of his “buddies” in uniform could give the reporter a ride in the back of a police car. When other journalists began videotaping him, he pulled out his cell phone and started recording the press. “I’m an independent reporter,” he said.  

Afterwards, Lt. Joe McHugh of the Coral Springs Police Department identified the man as one of his officers and defended his actions. “The reporter was running up along the side of the bus with no identification on identifying herself as a reporter,” McHugh said. “So the officer stuck his arm out to prevent her from getting to Mr. Cain and at which time he was successful.”  

Boerma was not wearing press tags but was carrying a video camera with a plainly visible CBS decal. She is a member of a team of reporters covering the presidential candidates for National Journal and CBS News.  

McHugh said the officer, Sgt. William Reid, suffered a hyperextended elbow. 

So are these pigs implying that there is nothing wrong with manhandling a woman as long as she is not a reporter? I see. My only regret is that Reid did not suffer something more serious, like a kick to the crotch with a steel-toed boot.

While we're on the subject of pigs, our next assholes are members of the Seattle Police Department. From Seattle PI:

An elderly woman, a pregnant woman and a priest were among those who were pepper-sprayed during a protest in support of the Occupy movement on Tuesday. 

The demonstrators taking part in the Occupy Seattle movement marched from their current camp at Seattle Central Community College to Westlake Park late Tuesday afternoon. 

While en route, they came across police officers at several points. At the intersection of Fifth and Pine, the crowd was met by a line of several dozen police officers on bicycles who blocked the way. 

Tensions mounted until police deployed pepper spray in an attempt to disperse the crowd and get the protesters out of the streets. About a dozen people were hit with the stinging fume. 

"Pepper spray was deployed only against subjects who were either refusing a lawful order to disperse or engaging in assaultive behavior toward officers," said Seattle police spokesman Jeff Kappel.

I guess if I had an uncontrollable urge to assault people I didn't like, I would go through the training necessary to get a badge to hide behind also. Good work, assholes!

Next on the list are Lauren E. Pierce and Cassie Wright of the University of Texas College Republicans. From ABC News blogs:

Hours after Pennsylvania State Police arrested a 21-year-old Idaho man for allegedly firing a semi-automatic rifle at the White House, the top student official for the College Republicans at the University of Texas tweeted that the idea of assassinating President Obama was “tempting.” 

At 2:29 p.m. ET, UT’s Lauren E. Pierce wrote: “Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.”  

Pierce, the president of the College Republicans at UT Austin, told ABC News the comment was a “joke” and that the “whole [shooting incident] was stupid.” Giggling, she said that an attempted assassination would “only make the situation worse.”  

“Insofar as she’s a representative [of the College Republicans], maybe it shouldn’t be said, but she’s made a positive statement in a way, ” said Cassie Wright, the group’s vice president. 

“I don’t really see anything wrong with it,” Wright added. “It’s just a personal comment, not representative of any group. Just freedom of speech, you know?”

That's right, Cassie. It's just freedom of speech. And as tempting as it may be, don't go out and shoot Lauren and Cassie, all right? We need them to go down in history as two of the most idiotic college students ever! Do not decapitate them or dismember them or disembowel them, all right? Do not pour motlen lava or wet concrete over them, or drop them from an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute, or rip their organs out of their bodies and put them in jars. Do not send them anthrax. Do not drop anvils on their heads. And do not detonate explosives attached to their bodies either. Now, before you get upset with me, you should know that I'm only joking here, for Pete's sake. This is just a personal comment. Isn't that right, Lauren and Cassie? Just freedom of speech, you know? So, to sum up, please don't vomit on these two nice young Republicans, or set their cars on fire, or urinate on their carpets, or give them herpes. Thanks. (See what I did there?)

Finally, our next assholes are television viewers everywhere. From Slate's culture blog:

Reports late Monday are that Community, the cult NBC sitcom, is being sent to detention. The show, a compulsively meta, reflexively self-referential one-camera undertaking that follows a bunch of misfits at a community college, has lagged even amongst NBC’s lagging Thursday night lineup, and has now been bumped out of it.  

A New York Magazine post on the move reports that the show isn’t even mentioned in the NBC press release detailing midseason lineups. Whitney is being moved to Wednesdays, to be replaced in the Thursday night lineup by Up All Night, the Will Arnett/Christina Applegate/Maya Rudolph parenthood comedy. 30 Rock is also returning, and it will bump Community out.  

The changes will be effective in the network’s so-called midseason, roughly the second week of January.

Here's an idea: stop watching the shit you usually watch and check out something good, like Community. Thank you!

A Letter to the Economist

Patter of tiny personhoods

SIR – I was delighted to read your article about the effort in Mississippi to pass a state constitutional amendment to recognise embryos as people from the moment of fertilisation (“A person already?”, October 8th). My wife and I have been considering IVF to address our lack of success in conceiving a child. Mississippi’s proposed amendment gives us even more reason to pursue this treatment, and to move to Mississippi.

After the procedure we will insist on taking custody of any extra embryos that result from IVF—it is our right as parents after all. Once safely in our home we plan to keep them in a freezer in our basement and list them as child dependents for tax purposes, thus giving us a tax deduction. To protect the lives of our children in case of a power outage we will buy a backup generator. Anything less would be bad parenting.

Benjamin Iwai
St Louis, Missouri

Source

Molly Giles, "The Poet's Husband"

He sits in the front row, large, a large man with large hands and large ears, dry lips, fresh-cut hair, pink skin, clear eyes that don't blink, a nice man, calm, that's the impression he gives, a quiet man who knows how to listen; he is listening now as she sways on the stage in a short black dress and reads one poem about the time she slit her wrists and another poem about a man she still sees and a third poem about a cruel thing he himself said to her six years ago that she never forgot and never understood, and he knows that when she is finished everyone will clap and a few, mostly women, will come up and kiss her, and she will drink far too much wine, far too quickly, and all the way home she will ask, "What did you think, what did you really think?" and he will say, "I think it went very well"—which is, in fact, what he does think—but later that night, when she is asleep, he will lie in their bed and stare at the moon through a spot on the glass that she missed.

From Micro Fiction, ed. Jerome Stern (New York: W.W. Norton, 1996), 24–25.

Langston Hughes, "Remember"

Remember
The days of bondage—
And remembering—
Do not stand still.
Go to the highest hill
And look down upon the town
Where you are yet a slave.
Look down upon any town in Carolina
Or any town in Maine, for that matter,
Or Africa, your homeland—
And you will see what I mean for you to see—

The white hand:
The thieving hand.
The white face:
The lying face.
The white power:
The unscrupulous power

That makes of you
The hungry wretched thing you are today.

Source: Poetry Magazine

Is that all you've got?

I first saw this on Facebook. A few of my Facebook friends who sympathize with the protesters were calling themselves hypocrites, thanks to this picture.

But we are not hypocrites. Just because I use or enjoy the products of a certain corporation does not obligate me to endorse everything that corporation does.

This picture is a slimy and manipulative piece of propaganda. Is that all you've got, assholes?

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Posted on September 30, 2011 by NYCGA

This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on September 29, 2011

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

• They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
• They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
• They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
• They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
• They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
• They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
• They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
• They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
• They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
• They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
• They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
• They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
• They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
• They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
• They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
• They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
• They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
• They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
• They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
• They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
• They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

Update 10/1/11 – Minor updates to some wording in the facts.

Source: http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

Clueless

I found this picture at We Are the 99 Percent. The slogan, "We are the 99 percent," refers to economic inequality in this country.

This person is doing rather well in this economy. He writes, "I personally make over $100,000 per year because I chose my graduate degree wisely." Good for him. Does he mean to imply, though, that all those who are struggling in this economy chose poorly, by either not going to college or by choosing the wrong major? Does he mean to imply that everyone who works hard but barely gets by should suffer because they didn't "choose wisely"? There is a deeper question here: should what one does with her life be determined solely by the market? Are the only worthwhile vocations in our society the ones that earn a living wage or better? And here is the deepest question: why should we automatically assume, as this gentleman has, that market realities are acceptable, preferable, and above reproach?

This man writes, "I don't have cable or satellite; I don't use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs as they are a waste of time and money. I drive a paid off seven-year-old vehicle 90 minutes to work EACH way." Good for him. But I can't help but wonder whether this man has been soaking up Heritage Foundation and Fox News propaganda intended to show that much of the 99% really isn't poor because so many of us own microwave ovens and DVD players. Maybe he, like Phil Gramm, thinks that much of the 99% is in a mental recession and their whining should be ignored. Maybe he thinks that all those whiners among the 99% could improve their lot in life if they simply got rid of their cable T.V. and stopped buying brand new cars, whiskey, and heroin.

The man also writes, "I have joined the US military BOTH times we were at war in Iraq to serve my country." Let me first say that I thank you for your service and the sacrifices you have made for our country. I wonder why it is relevant to the issue at hand, though. Are you implying that you are doing better in life than many of the 99% because you served your country? How would you explain that, exactly? Do you mean to imply that you are better than many of the 99% who haven't served? Do you mean to imply that your opinions carry extra weight simply because you served your country? Let me assure you, they do not. Your service is irrelevant to this issue, sir. Your use of ethos here is a mere rhetorical trick and is unrelated to the merit of your views.

The man writes, "I support individual liberty and individual responsibility. I believe people should work to support themselves and not live off others." Does he mean to imply that many of us in the 99% do not support individual liberty, that we're not responsible, that we don't want to support ourselves, that we want to live off others? Seriously? We want a country and an economy in which a responsible person can work to support herself and live comfortably without undue fear of economic hardship. We live in a country in which wealth is rewarded; we want a country in which work is rewarded. We want a country and an economy that rewards those who play by the rules. You seem to think that those of us who are suffering in this economy are getting what we deserve. That, sir, is offensive. And if you knew how clueless you are, you would be embarrassed and ashamed.

The man writes, "I do not feel that other people owe me anything." Then you, sir, are part of the problem. Employers owe those of us who are lucky enough to be employed big time. While society may not owe anything to the millions of unemployed who were chewed up and spat out by this economy, society has plenty reason to look after them until they are able to get back on their feet.

The man writes, "I am the 99% but I don't begrudge the 1%!" Neither do we. I know that comes as a surprise to this man, who has been taught by the conservative media that many of the 99% are upset simply because they hate wealthy people. We are upset because we are not be treated fairly in this economy. Many economists simply assume that common practices in our economy are just solely in virtue of the fact that they are common. And they rake other economists (e.g., Paul Krugman) over the coals for disagreeing with that view. But you do not have to be a sociopath, like those economists, sir. You can recognize that there are things in life other than profit that are valuable and worthwhile, like health and dignity.

The man refers us to www.daveramsey.com. Here's my question: what fucking good is advice from Dave Ramsey in an economy like this where there are no jobs and no opportunities for many of the 99%? What about those who, through no fault of their own, can't even afford rice and beans, beans and rice for dinner? If someone finds herself without a job, is it necessarily all of her fault? Aren't certain presidential candidates who believe that it is simply out of their fucking minds? Isn't it completely obvious that the path a person's life takes is determined not only by her choices but also by circumstances out of her control? Yes.

Sir, I personally welcome you to the 99%. But could you please stop assuming that you know anything about the rest of us, please? Thank you!

Thank you, R.E.M. (but not for everything)

I can't spend any more time editing this. So here it is, with all of its flaws. 

I've been thinking about R.E.M. since they broke up recently. I feel sad, even though I haven't really paid attention to them in almost twenty years. Here are my thoughts about R.E.M.'s music. They're not really very sophisticated or well argued-for.

I rank the R.E.M. albums I have listened to in the following order, from most to least favorite:

1. Murmur
2. Out of Time
3. Fables of the Reconstruction
4. Chronic Town
5. Green and Lifes Rich Pageant (tie)
6. Reckoning
7. Document
8. Automatic for the People 

The first two on the list, Murmer and Out of Time, are near-perfect wholes, and a best-of anthology that omitted any of the songs from either of them would be incomplete. As my wife put it, Out of Time is magical, and I would say the same about Murmer. I was alive when Murmer was released in 1983, and I remember listening to it for the first time with my best friend at the time and marveling at its greatness. I don't think the album has a single weakness. I have met people who dislike jangle pop, but anyone who takes the time to listen cannot deny that Murmer is a classic in the genre. Most people who have heard R.E.M. have probably heard "Radio Free Europe," which is a very good song indeed. But every song on Murmer is well-written and played. "Perfect Circle" is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard:



So if you haven't heard Murmer, do yourself a favor and buy it or stream it on Grooveshark.

Out of Time, released in 1991, is a very different record. This is evident from the very beginning: the first song, "Radio Song," features the vocals of rapper KRS-One. By this time, R.E.M.'s sound had become more varied: different vocalists and instruments were making appearances on their songs. Every song on Out of Time is brilliantly written and executed, and they all somehow form a coherent whole. (Rolling Stone's negative review of the record is, in a word, idiotic.) "Losing My Religion" is one of those rare hit songs that is genuinely great. "Shiny Happy People" is perhaps the weakest song on the album and sounds like the kind of song that could grow annoying (and I have no doubt that it has for many people), but it never has for me. Because the album is more or less uniformly excellent, it's difficult to pick one song from the album to post here. "Low," however, is perhaps less well known than other songs on the album and represents the emotional thrust of the album well:



Third on the list is Fables of the Reconstruction (or Reconstruction of the Fables, depending on how you read it).

Released in 1985, Fables may not be in quite the same category as Murmer and Out of Time, but it is significantly better than the next best album, in my opinion. When it first came out, I think that the songwriting struck me as being odd and it had to grow on me. Maybe it was all of those minor keys. "Feeling Gravitys Pull" doesn't sound quite like anything on their previous records:



But grow on me it did: the songs are truly great and they hang together quite well. "Wendell Gee" is one of my favorite R.E.M. songs of all time (pardon the inferior sound quality):

If I had to pick my favorite R.E.M. songs from the remaining albums, they would be the following, in no particular order:

• "Wolves, Lower"
• "Gardening at Night"
• "Stumble"
• "Get Up"
• "World Leader Pretend"
• "The Wrong Child"
• "Begin the Begin"
• "These Days"
• "Fall On Me"
• "Superman" 
• "7 chineSe bros."
• "Time After Time (annElise)"
• "Finest Worksong"
• "Fireplace"
• "Nightswimming"

Of all of these, my favorite is probably "World Leader Pretend":



Document never did much for me. (Though I like it a little better now than I used to.) "Oddfellows Local 151" is, I think, the first throwaway track R.E.M. ever recorded. And I have really tried to love the weirdly subdued Automatic for the People, and it just hasn't worked. There are half a dozen good songs on the entire album at most. (And no, "Everybody Hurts" isn't one of them.) Perhaps the songs seem lackluster because they just don't measure up to R.E.M.'s best material. I'm not sure. (Incredibly, Rolling Stone rates Automatic for the People as the 247th greatest album of all time, ahead of David Bowie's Low, Jesus and Mary Chain's Psychocandy, The Cars, Talking Heads' 77, Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits, Frank Zappa's We're Only In It For the Money, The Pixies' Surfer Rosa, Jethro Tull's Aqualung, and The Doors' L.A. Woman, to name a few.)

I heard the follow-up Monster in the local Hastings soon after it was released, and I hated it. With the exception of "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" it was just awful. After that, I wrote them off. I listened to at least part of New Adventures in Hi-Fi when it came out; I liked "Leave," but that was about it. A friend of mine tried to turn me on to Up when it came out, but it did nothing for me. And that was the last I had heard from them (due to my own lack of curiosity) until they disbanded. So I'm not sure why I'm sad now, since I've been missing them, or at least the good music they were once capable of making, for some time. For the great music you made, however, I thank you, R.E.M.