Walter Cronkite—Where are You When We Need You?

2 08 2010

 

 

I usually don’t make comparisons to the way things are now, with the way things were.  Usually our fantasies about the past are just that—fantasies.  But in the case of news reporting, I think it helpful to compare the reporting of Walter Cronkite in the sixties and the seventies with our situation today.  Cronkite was called “the most trusted man in America” and held the American publics trust for many years even though he did not always tell us what we wanted to hear and sometimes got the facts wrong.  But even when we later learned that his reporting wasn’t completely accurate we still believed that it was an honest mistake and we forgave him.  The other two major networks NBC and ABC were always trying to hold themselves to Cronkite’s standards because he was the standard for ethical reporting. 

  Along the way something has happened that has created a mean spirited and ethically bankrupt journalistic (and I use the term loosely) environment.  This situation is primarily on the cable TV networks and on talk radio.  You can even extend that criticism to blogs (maybe even this one).  Accurate and civil reporting seems to be a thing of the past.  And because there is so much dead air that needs to be filled, we are inundated with the same meaningless or vitriolic material 24/7.  We only get relief early in the morning when the infomercials hit the airways.  Gauged by the stuff that we get during the day, infomercials are a paragon of truth and virtue.  And cable news continually rails about the same subjects over and over, not even giving us a variety of arguments.  How many times have we heard that tax cuts are the answer to creating jobs or that we need more government spending to get us out of the recession.  And the interviews, where they have up to six pundits shouting at each other at the same time, with the so called moderator hogging the mike and talking over the other guests, makes my head ache.  Nothing new is uttered and the information given is usually inane, unintelligible, or cut off by a commercial. 

 To make things worse, we are now seeing these cable stations taking pot shots at each other.  Whether it’s Fox TV shooting at Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart or vice versa, the new form seems intent on attacking each other.  Since I now have to check in with all these shows including Glen Beck, I realize that I’m contributing to the problem.  Even though I’d rather not be in that position, I’ve become addicted.  It’s like going to the Roman Coliseum and seeing the blood sports of the time—they repulse me, but I feel compelled to watch.  It’s sick.

 In a recent Gallup poll of July 28, 2010 it was shown that only 9% of people rated members of congress as having high ethical standards.  Business executives were rated at 12% with journalists rated at 23%.  And even though we have lost trust in these professions, our frustration and anger is fueled by the constant need for ratings and our thirst for blood lust.

 So, why do I keep watching??????


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Uncategorized

Internet Ethics—Caveat Emptor

8 05 2010

 

 

If you’re like me, you are forwarded e-mails that present stories that on their face seem plausible, particularly if they play into your own biases.  They are presented as truth and you’re encouraged to pass them along to your friends.  The latest one that I received purportedly is from a newspaper article including a picture of the article itself stating that Hispanics conducted a boycott in Victoria Texas that they concluded was successful.  The full document is included below.

 “Victoria, Texas is a town about 80 miles west of Houston. Local Hispanic leaders there, in opposition to pending Immigration Legislation, boycotted all Caucasian owned businesses last month as a demonstraton of their economic impact on the community.

The boycott was declared a success by the Hispanic community, noting revenue in Caucasian owned business was down by 19 percent.

Business owners declared the boycott a success as well, pointing out that shoplifting was reduced by 77 percent, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97 percent, and the cost of daily clean-up and trash collection was down by 84 percent. Shoppers reported they could actually hear english being spoken throughout the community for the first time in recently memory, and customers paid for purchases with real money, not government debit cards or food stamps! The handwritten date is August 12 – 18th, 2009”

 I would site the paper and author but as is often the case in these situations there’s no way to check the veracity of the article or any of the statistics.  Also you will note that “revenue in Caucasian owned business was down by 19 percent” and that “shoplifting was reduced by 77 percent, money orders sent out of the country were down by 97 percent, and the cost of daily clean-up and trash collection was down by 84 percent.”   I wonder who did the statistical analysis on this event and why didn’t the national media pick it up.  Even if the “liberal” press passed it up I would think a story like this, if found to be true, would make it to Fox News.

 The point of all this is that the internet is a wonderful source of information but more than ever we have to be vigilant in checking our sources.  I’m amazed at how many people believe these stories whether it’s that Obama is a Muslim, or that he gave up his citizenship and therefore can’t be president or that an autistic child captured a Troll and put him in a closet while his mother was at the grocery store.  With MSNBC and Fox News, when they run a story they at least cite a source.   With the internet we may not be so lucky.  To me acknowledging the veracity of these urban legends as true is like buying male enhancement drugs on line from Russia, or sending money and giving your bank number to the Prince of Nigeria in order to get the major portion of his ill gained $40million.  If you’re interested, there are several internet sites that check out rumors and urban legends.  One is called www.snopes.com  and another is called www.truthorfiction.com  . However, in the interest of full disclosure there are a lot of people who don’t think the site is truthful and as one comment said, “it’s owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama.”

 Truth is hard enough to glean without being subjected to out and out fabrications and distortions.  We know that it’s even difficult for two people witnessing the same event to see it the same way.  The human mind has so much information to filter, we often find ourselves in overload.  And unfortunately with technology, we’ve just begun in the explosion of our ability to have access to interactive information that can help us critically assess this information.  But our minds have got to be open to these differences in perception and facts and filter through our biases realizing that your truth may not be mine.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Tea Party Angst

1 04 2010

 

In earlier posts I talked extensively about Cultural Isolation in society.  In particular I discussed the issues of Language,  The Tyranny of the Expert, and feelings of entitlement.  In the responses of people who are being engaged by the Tea Party movement, we see all of these factors of influence. 

 If you listen to the followers, you hear much of the same mantra—“Washington is not listening to us”, “throw all the politicians out and start all over again”.  Their analysis of the problem comes from very personal experiences that come out as frustration and anger.  They believe that the course our country is on is only leading to disaster.  Whether it is the healthcare bill, cap and trade, immigration or taxation they believe the country is on the wrong track. 

 It would be too simplistic to assert that all their stories are the same, but I would like to hear some of the individual stories of the people involved.  I would have to assume that those who have become a part of the caravan that is now crossing America and going to Washington, have the ability to move around independently, whether they are retired or unemployed, or self-employed.  Their mantra seems to be along the same lines that Republicans have asserted—cut taxes and cut spending.  However, Tea Partiers have also tended to hearken back to some mythical past when life seemed better.  From my observation many of them were a bit past middle-aged but there was also a fair number of younger people represented.  They’ve taken on Sarah Palin as their hero even though she seems short on solutions and long on platitudes.  If you are a Tea Partier or have heard personal stories about why people are interested in the movement, please share those stories here.  I want to know how the current political system has personally affected them.  I know that they are concerned about the future for their children and grand children as most of us are, but I want to know the stories of how our system has personally affected them. 

 As I analyze what is happening around issues  like healthcare and reform of the banking system, I wonder if their anger is misplaced.  Who or what groups have the power over these issues.  Take the healthcare bill.  Who stands to benefit the most from the bill.  Well certainly the 25 million people who don’t currently have healthcare, but the real beneficiaries are the insurance companies that had 25 million new customer laid in their laps without any marketing on their part.  Also, the drug companies will benefit since the donut hole in Medicare part D will directly benefit the drug companies. 

 Then there’s the banking system.  It’s too early to make a call on this but as things are progressing it appears that not much is going to happen to “too big to fail” , the derivative situation and huge salaries and bonuses.  My guess is that it will be business as usual and that the only ones that will be adversely effected will be the public and community banks that may end up being gobbled up by the “too big to fail” banks.

 What about fixes on the spending and income side of government.  With 80% of the federal budget going for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, payment on the national debt and the military, where will we cut?  It’s easy to say, cut taxes and spend less, but as I see it those kind of Draconian changes will affect the poor and the middle class the most.  Which brings us to another interesting situation.  My guess is that most of the people who attend the Tea Party participants would consider themselves middle class, middle America and from the crowds, they’re also predominately white.  So why do they seem to align themselves with those people who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo—the very wealthy.  Washington is representative in name only with lobbyists throwing money at both sides of the aisle.  The great debate is on as to how we’re going to pay for all this.  People making under $50,000 a year, depending on the state you live in, have   an effective tax rate of about 40%,  This includes federal and state income taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, etc.,  sales taxes, and property taxes whether paid as homeowner or as a renter.  And if the federal government lowers taxes on an item, it tends to shift the same tax to the local and state governments.  And who pays for this?  Well, we all do.  But there’s something called regressive taxation that tends to hit lower-income earners.  Sales taxes are regressive, taxes on gasoline and tobacco are regressive and many of the tax fixes in the healthcare bill are regressive and all flow down to the middle class.  The primary taxes that are progressive are progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.  Could it be that the majority of the Tea Partiers are the ones most effected by regressive taxes and feeling the pain associated with over taxation.  So, I’m a bit confused that in those rallies I don’t hear much about raising taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class.  President Obama stated that taxes have been lowered for 95% of all Americans.  If that is true, then the question is, “is that enough?” and if not, how much is enough and how then do we balance the budget and where will the cuts come from?  My sense is that the Tea Partiers need to appraise who the enemy is and come up with realistic solutions for a change.   The question about ethics comes in trying to  identify the culprits in this mess.  We can blame Obama and his minions or we can blame the Republicans or the bankers or the drug companies, but my guess is that we all share in the creation of the problem.  If we identify the culprits, then what do we do?  In this case it seems that we are confronted with a Medusa creature that has many heads.  Perseus was only able to kill the Medusa by looking into her mirror rather than looking at her directly.  Maybe part of our answer is in looking beyond the obvious and answer for ourselves, “who stands to benefit the most from our current situation?”

 I’m like everyone else.  I don’t want my taxes raised but at the same time I don’t want to give up my Medicare or my Social Security.  And I want to be able to leave my children and grand children a major portion of the benefits of my lifetime financial success.  So, how will we solve the problem?  Time is running out to solve the problems we face in a pro-active way.  The longer we wait, the more Draconian our choices will be.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 1

Okay! I’m a Homer on Natural Gas

13 03 2010

 

I’ve been around long enough to know that pretty much everything has political implications.  But PLEASE, someone explain to me why coal is getting preferential treatment as a fuel over natural gas.  And why all the talk about alternative fuels being the wave of the future when there’s little developmental funding available, in particular for the small inventor.  Only large companies can afford to spend the kind of money necessary to do research and to bring alternative fuels to the market.  And most of them, due to the length of the time horizon to bringing them online would rather invest in areas that will bring energy online quicker. 

 My sons have a small company called www.swellfuel.com that for the last three years has been developing a system to make electricity from ocean waves.  In order to test his units he’s had to go outside the United States because the regulations on obtaining test sites take too long to obtain and cost too much to get.  Investors are reluctant to fund projects where they can’t see results in a short time.

 And then there’s the companies that talk the talk but don’t really walk the walk.  They talk about being Green and what they’re doing for the environment, but when you drill down deeper you see that it’s not much of a commitment, but more of a public relations effort.  That in of itself doesn’t seem ethical.

 Growing up in Houston, we had a gas stove in the kitchen and we used gas heating.  It got the job done without a lot of pollution.  So, to all my good friend out there who are engineers and scientists, please, please explain how it can be ethical not to utilize a source of energy, natural gas, that our country has that could make our country fuel sufficient for a long tome to come.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Sex Education Redux

9 03 2010

 

                                                                                              

Deut. 25: 5-10

“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family.  Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of brother-in-law to her.  The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

 The scripture goes on to say that if the brother refuses to marry his sister-in-law, she can go before the council of elders and demand that he marry her.  If he refuses she may take her sandal, spit in his face and the man will be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.  Strange law, huh.  For Israel sex was more about necessity than pleasure.  Women were considered property and had limited rights.  But this law is referenced again later in the old testament where a man refused to marry his dead brothers wife and even when God told him directly to marry her, he refused and as a result, God killed him.

Today the purpose of sex and its relationship to family, covenant, and responsibility is much more blurred.  For those of us who are older, we mostly learned the facts of life in the locker room or the back of a car on a weekend date. If we had “the talk” with our parents it was generally pretty superficial and stressful for all concerned. And as far as the church giving information, it too was generally pretty superficial, stressful, and the message generally was “don’t” or riddled with messages of guilt.  As the culture began to open up and become more permissive we began to get our information from the media, which was usually unreliable.   Since the fifties and sixties the media and behaviors have gone through a revolution and yet we still live in a world where it’s difficult to talk openly about behaviors that are at the core of the human condition.  The culture on the one hand wants us to be responsible and careful, but gives little good information to help young and old alike.

 During the nineties, Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was making a speech before the United Nations on the world Aids pandemic.  Someone asked her in a Q and A what she thought about teaching people alternate ways of dealing with their sexuality, and in particular masturbation.  Her answer was, “I think that masturbation is a part of human sexuality and perhaps it should be taught.”  For that statement and a public outcry for her to resign, President Clinton asked and received her resignation saying that he did not agree with her on the subject– and this coming from Clinton.  Hardly a month passes without us seeing somewhere on the back pages of our newspapers where a person in some authority like a school administrator has made statements about sex and sexuality and has been asked to resign.  Much of the time the argument is made that sex is not to be taught in school unless it’s about total abstinence.   Those who protest, state that it is either for the parents to teach their children about sexuality or for the church to do so.   Unfortunately, most often neither happens. Today our children have new sources for learning about sex.  They can just turn on the TV, or go to the internet or for many who are latch key kids, learn about it while mom is away at work. 

 Sex and sexuality is more than learning about the nuts and bolts of the act itself.  It’s about learning about responsibility and self worth.  It’s about a young girl learning that she doesn’t need to “put out” and get pregnant to have self worth.  It’s about a young man learning that he doesn’t get his manhood from “scoring” and that if he fathers a child he will be expected to help take care of that child.  Sex has become more of a sport than about relationship.  Sex is depicted as momentary and lacking in intimacy.  There are no consequences.  Even STD’s hold little concern for many. 

 Many young people engage in serial relationships, sometimes ending in marriage and often not.  And what becomes of those multiple relationships.  Among middle class women we know that in breakups women are more likely to seek help from friends, therapy, etc.  while men tend to internalize their feelings and move on.  Even serial relationships and one nighters are often depicted as having little effect on the parties who engage in them. These multiple breakups can have a negative emotional cumulative effect.  In the movie “High Fidelity” with John Cusack and Iben Hjejle, Cusack is in the process of breaking up with Hjejle and tells her that this breakup doesn’t even make the top five of his life long breakups.  It becomes obvious that all of his multiple breakups have taken a toll on his ability to trust and to be intimate.   

 So, what of morality and ethics.  In this situation I equate morality with those taboos of behavior that our religion or family teaching gives us.  Ethics is about the way we treat one another and the covenantal relationships we establish with one another.  For young people the concept of ethical implications of a relationship may be too sophisticated.  Hormones are raging and they’re blinded by their new found power.  Friends and media depict this behavior as normal.  And they can’t see beyond the moment.  That’s why it’s important to give correct and sound information.  Since they’re not mature enough to understand the implications of relationships, it’s important to give them adequate information.  Even though the law of relationships given in Deuteronomy seems quite bizarre to our modern mind, it’s about ethics and not morality.  It was believed by Israel that a man had an obligation to help his brothers’ line continue if he died and not to do so, was an abomination to God.  Women had few rights but this was a right that she had to ensure that her children and her husband line be continued.  It was an ethical issue because it dealt with the realities of the time. 

So, what are the ethics of relationships and sexuality for us today?  To me, it’s that we’re all blessed children of God, worthy of respect and concern.  Sexuality is not just about an act. It’s that even in a moment of passion we consider the full humanity of the other as well as our own selfhood.  Children who are born into loving families where both parents are involved in raising children are more likely to stay in school, stay out of poverty and prison and live a productive life.

 As parents and teachers,  we can’t just see the world as either being like Father Knows Best or a world of internet porn— neither is reality.  Reality is that today 40% of all children are born out of wedlock with 70% of African American babies born out of wedlock to women who often have no network to help them cope and will soon find that the quickest way to find ones self in poverty in America is to start out poor, have a child with no father around and little education.  Reality is that over 60% of college grads in their thirties live in co-habitation relationship. Reality is that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce.  Reality is that there are different sexual expectations between upper middle class persons of all races and those who are poor. 

 When Jocelyn Elders made her statement about masturbation, no one asked her what she meant and how she might suggest teaching.  But we know that living in a masturbatory fantasy world is also not the answer.  I mean, what do we think men and women who frequent porn sites do, just read the articles?    Maybe if we had waited to let her explain herself we might have a clearer understanding about what she meant.  But we closed her off and we’ll never be able to engage her in a more open conversation about what it means to be fully human.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Texas Has the Best Textbooks in the Country. Or do we?

27 02 2010

My good friend Nancy W from Little Rock Ark wrote me the other day with a concern she has with State Board of Education of Texas.  You might ask why does someone in Arkansas care about the SBOE?  The reason is that the SBOE of Texas is the state that about 46 or 47 states in the US follow when it comes to deciding on school books for their schools.  So, don’t we make good book choices?  Not according to many citizens and school officials.  Texas has become the battlefield for issues revolving around science and creationism and more recently over what is being included in history and government books as it pertains to references to the founding fathers creating a Christian nation.  According to many, this is first of all not true and trying create the impression that that this misrepresentation is a clear breach of the “wall of separation between Church and state” that Thomas Jefferson spoke about.  The current issue is whether the United States was conceived as a Christian nation.  Conservatives argue that it was.   Others would say that the founding fathers even though religious espoused the idea that God was not necessarily a Christian God.  Consider the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…..that all men are endowed by their Creator….  This asserts that God has a hand in the affairs of men but that is more a deist conception of God, rather than a Trinitarian God.

 A good book to give a balanced assessment of religion in the creation of the United States is Jon Mecham’s book American Gospel.  Here are several quotes attributed to the founders. (2006)

 “Writing to a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, President Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that America “gives…bigotry no sanction.”  In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the senate in 1797, the Founders declared that, “ the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” p. 19

 Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1790:“ I believe in one God, creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshiped.  That the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children.  That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.  These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them.

 As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, an I have…some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” P.2

 “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles,” he [Jefferson] said, “ all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”  P. 29

 “I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another,” Jefferson wrote. “I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to changer another’s creed.  I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives…” “ For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read,” Jefferson said.  “By the same test the world must judge me.” P.35

 The most controversial appointee running for re-election Don McLeroy and his opponent Thomas Ratliff are so far down the Republican primary ballot they’re lost in the myriad of judges, representative and straw votes that it’ll be difficult to find them, much less know the issues involved.

 I’m sorry Nancy, but anyway, here’s your comment it its entirety.

 I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.  I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 1, ethics

The Ethics of I’ll Never See You Again

21 02 2010

 An alternative to the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is a cooperation game with a set number of rounds with a finite final round that the players know about.   The rule is that you cooperate every round until the last round and then defect.  Therefore the one who defects on the last round is the winner.  The reasoning goes that if both players know when the last round is going to be, then they will both defect prior to the last round, which will change the whole dynamics of the game and the way they cooperate in the earlier rounds.  Basically, cooperation ceases and people revert to more pragmatic strategies.  But is it true that if we know when the last round is that we will take advantage of the situation and be unethical in our behavior.  If we can get away with something, will we do it?  I’ll give you two examples of the I’ll never see you again scenario.

 Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were traveling to Austin when we were caught in a terrible thunder storm.  I turned my windshield wipers up to full capacity.  As they were whipping around, the blade on my side of the car came loss and started flopping around to where I couldn’t see where I was going.  I finally was able to get to a small town off the highway and found a shade tree mechanics shop.  The mechanic looked at the blade, got a small wrench and tightened a small screw that had been holding the blade in place.  I asked how much I owed him and since he wasn’t the boss, he called someone and came back and told me it would be $25.  The whole operation took less than five minutes.  I thought that was terribly exorbitant but since I needed to get back on the road I didn’t argue about the price, paid it and went on my way.  But I wondered to myself and my friend what it would have cost someone who lived in the town, if in fact they would be charged.

 The other example had a completely different outcome.  I was coming back from a boating outing with my two young sons.  I had recently bought a very old boat and trailer and hooked it up to new motor.  At the time I bought the boat I had thought what a great bargain it was.  That was not to be the case.  As I was driving down the highway, I happened to look in my side mirror and noticed that there was a wobble in the tire on the trailer.  I stopped to inspect it and found that the lugs had eaten away the wheel rim and the wheel was dangerously close to allowing the tire to fall off. It was Sunday afternoon and I was out in the middle of no where with my pre-teen sons.  What was I to do?  I was even considering just leaving the boat, trailer, and new motor and hoping I could come back the next day and retrieve something.  As I stood there considering my limited options an old pickup truck pulled behind my boat and an old man got out.  He came up, we had a short conversation and he said that he would go home and bring some very large washers that he had and we could  jerry rig the wheels to where I could limp home.  He left, and after about an hour and I was beginning to think he’d decided not to come back, I saw the old pickup emerging in the distance.  We spent a few minutes putting the washers in place.  I didn’t have much cash on me but I offered him what I had and he said,  “no, cudn’t accept nothin mister. All I got to say is that if you ever see me on the road broke down, just stop and do the same.”  Even today as I think about his act of kindness it brings tears to my eyes. I’ve never seen him again and I’m always too busy or too afraid to help someone broken down on the road, but maybe in some other ways, I can just pass his kindness forward. 

 It makes me reflect that the game that calls us into caring relationships is never over, even when we’ll never see someone again.  Just pass it forward.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : ethics

Thoughts of an Old Debater

17 01 2010

In high school I was not a very good student.  I wasn’t a “sweat hog”; just not that inspired.  However, there was one course I took that has probably helped me more than any other course I took in school.  That was debate.  Let me hasten to say that I was not a very good debater.  But debate taught me to think, do research, and to look at both sides of a question.  And considering both sides of the question was often difficult, particularly if I already had my mind made up.  What I learned though, was that in almost any argument there is a little truth.  It may be difficult to get to the core because of inaccuracies, distortions, and prejudices but none the less, it’s there.  All arguments lean in one direction or another and it’s difficult to see the nuanced differences.  But debate helped me recognize the nuances and to better understand the faulty logic that occur in many arguments.  This has a bearing on ethics as persons reasoning for a position may be rationalized and distorted to justify their actions.

 Recently, I’ve been following the activities of State Board of Education for standards for public school social studies curriculum.  The debate over school books is a perennial issue that many people take very seriously.  Issues of diversity, civil rights, the presentation of Texas history and the role of religion and government in the US get full exposure in these hearing sessions.  This is important and many of us should be more concerned about what our children are exposed to in school.  I might be cynical and say that this concern over minutia is not important, but it is. 

 The internet has become the center of education and information to most of the world.  Unfortunately, it is seen by many as being the truth, even though there is great diversity on the web. How many of us use Wikipedia, “ the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, as our starting point for research.   If a statement is said enough and sent to enough people, it can become the truth.  Blogs are rampant and if they have the readership can become very influential, often without having to prove up arguments.  WordPress.com alone has nearly 275,000 blogs.  Since anyone can have a forum on the internet at no cost, print media is moving away from paper production to the internet, just to survive.  And because there is little or no censorship on the internet, except maybe in China and Iran, anything can be said or shown.

 Exaggeration, deception and unethical behavior is not new.   It’s just more apparent and available through these media outlets.  This is particularly true in election cycles.  Last night I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate. Listening to them, it could be assumed that neither the senator nor the governor had done anything right in all the time they were in office.  This resulted in gross inaccuracies by them both and the candidate who had not held office had a free ride to challenge them both and to advocate certain positions that, to some, might sound plausible but in the reality of our current situation would be impossible to implement.  I’m sure that when we get to the general election the candidates from both parties will paint themselves in the best light, hope they can deliver on their promises and voters will either buy into their exaggerations and unattainable promises or decide that there should be a pox on both their houses and opt out of voting.

 This brings us to the question of whether this kind of behavior is ethical.  Ethical behavior as we have discussed is covenantal, requires monitoring of our personal inner assumptions and prejudices, requires personal truth telling, and a discernment of differing ethical standards.  What politician really tells it like it is and tells voters that everyone may have to sacrifice and that there will be interest groups that won’t be willing to compromise.  No politician will say things like that because they want to be elected and so they won’t be forthcoming.  Being consistent and recognizing the possibility of other viewpoints is important.  This is required in all situations whether, business, political or personal.  Using these criteria, I would suggest that much of what we hear from politician and some media is not ethical. 

 So how can we discern arguments that don’t meet the smell test?  The following are few of the ways that persuasion is used to color and distort the facts or to knowingly be downright untruthful.

                 Argument from statistics-   statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do.;  our engineers say that there is a +-3% fudge factor on our reserves.  Since the price of oil is down this quarter, let’s use the +3% so that it doesn’t seem we have less reserves than we did last quarter.

  • Argument from circumstantial detail—an array of facts not intimately related that are drawn together to look as if they are. The murder weapon was found in the back yard of the defendant.  The defendant knew to person murdered.  The defendant had been seen arguing with the murder victim.  Therefore the defendant by circumstances, murdered the victim.
  • Argument from comparison—Rome fell because of corruption and a deterioration of values.   The US is also suffering from corruption and a deterioration of values.  Therefore the US is in its last days as a super power.
  • Argument from analogy—  in the story of the ant and the grasshopper, the ant put up food for the winter while the grasshopper played.  Therefore people who do not save for a wintry day will have to go begging as the grasshopper did.
  • Argument by generalization—everyone is getting on board, so you should too.
  • Argument by authority—4 out 5 doctors smoke Camels;  our attorney’s say that we’re okay on this and can go ahead.
  • Argument of alteration—(if, then)  Two alternatives.  Either we allow people to carry guns on their person thereby protecting citizens from criminals or we deny citizens from carrying guns and suffer from increased crimes to our citizens. 
  • Expansive argument—all (fill in the nationality)  are con artists and therefore should be sent back to (their country of origin).

In each of these forms of argumentation there may be a modicum of truth or in fact the argument may be completely analogous and true.  For the listener, it’s important to internally challenge the argument and seek to determine its validity.  We also need to challenge our own prejudices as we listen to arguments and hear of persons’ actions.  These actions have a quality of ethical bearing and the voracity in whole or in part to the argument. 

            Laws have been passed to help consumers of products and securities to get enough accurate facts to make good decisions.  However, unethical persons/organizations continue to give faulty and information to either puff the features of a product or to downplay or completely avoid negative features of products.  Whether it is downsizing of a box of cereal, the misrepresentation of a security, or the statement of someone running for office, citizens need to be able to discern fact from fiction and the nuances of human nature.  One of the issues before the Texas State Board of Education is whether Henry Cisneros should be put into a Texas junior high social studies book.  This  may or may not be important.  But what is important is for a student to be able to know both sides of the Henry Cisneros story; what he did for Texas and what makes some people want to keep him out of the textbook, and then help students and the public make informed judgments about a persons ethical behavior and make their own decision as to his value as public servant and as a human being.  Or, we can just continue to edit Wikipedia and see it as our source of truth. (see Henry Cisneros—Wikipedia)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Who Will You Trust

10 01 2010

  In a recent PBS program entitled “The Emotional Self—Family, Friends and Lovers” several studies were sited concerning children’s bonding to caregivers being crucial for future relationships with others.  In particular several studies of children raised in Russian orphanages where the children received little adult holding and love, showed that the children had great difficulty in developing a trust in others as well as a disassociation with the world in general.  In other words, there was little interaction and trust.  One of the themes in previous articles is that there is a mutual relationship and understanding of what ethical standards will be followed by each party or the society will be bound.  Morality is just that—a moral compass, whereas ethics is more systemic and may not always reflect the morality of groups within the culture.  The program went on to say that humans are hard wired to connect.  Ethics is one way a society in general defines the standards by which we will connect. Ethics is one way that we define our roles in these trust relationships.  If trust does not exist, it is difficult to relate.

Think about when you were in elementary school.  If a group of you were playing kickball and someone broke a rule, if would often result in either some of the players leaving the game or the ostracizing of one of the players or someone picking up their ball, leaving, thereby breaking up the game.  The infraction was a breach of the implied ethics of the game.  If you can remember being a part of something like this, you may also remember how you felt.  For me, it was a feeling of betrayal by the person who broke the rule.  I may not have totally broke off the friendship, but at least I did not allow myself to be put in the same vulnerable situation.  I also learned some empathy for others who suffered injustice.  Unfortunately, not all children internalize these experiences and generalize them to their relationships with others. Trust is learned from birth.  In a healthy human relationship, I learn that when I cry someone would come to feed me, change me or meet my need to be held and comforted.  I came to trust that those needs would be met by my mother or father.  As I became older I became either trustful or distrustful of other people in my life to be consistent and trustworthy.  Hopefully, I also learn that it’s okay not to be the center of the universe and that others rights and feelings are important, not only for them, but for me too.

 But along the way, we all have to recognize that we are not the center of the universe and that we don’t make all the rules.  I am not entitled to do things only my way.  As a result I have to adhere to the standards of others.  Some people, throughout their whole life, feel entitled to doing things their way and that ethics, morals, and laws only pertain to other.  They have no covenant with others.  They may adhere to the rules for a while until they decide for whatever reason that those rules are not in their interest, so they set up their own rules, which most often are about them and them alone.  Whether this action is a result of too much permissiveness in childhood or an anomaly in hardwiring or a lack of bonding in early development is not clear, but the way we are raised and nurtured plays a part in the way we respond to the rules and conventions of the culture. 

 This is why it is so important to both nurture children to trust in the world through the love of parents and caregivers, but to also teach children beginning at an early age, the difference in right and wrong, the reciprocal nature of relationships, and to empathize with others  and how to evaluate ethical dichotomies. As we become adults, we have the opportunity to develop deeper and more intense relationships.  The same principles will apply as with children.  How do I share, how do I get my own needs met, and what role does empathy play in these relationships.

 Childhood family relationships are one way that we learn these roles.  School is another. And our faith traditions are another.  To me our faith traditions are a method that in today’s pluralistic society is of utmost importance; to be able to see that God is both a loving God and that God has laws, that if broken result in consequences.  These consequences are not acts of punishment, but that come about as a result of our own actions in a universe of natural laws.  These natural laws are not just physical laws.  They are also laws of relationships.   We don’t always understand these laws but ut none the less, we are bound by them. 

 But even when we break God’s laws we can live in the assurance that through grace we can start over in our quest for connection.  We do not have to be bound by the act; that God is always with us and loves us unconditionally.  That’s a difficult concept for us all.  Again, remember when you were a small child and you did something that you shouldn’t have.  When scolded by your parent you might have said, “mama, you don’t love me anymore.”  And if your mother were a wise mother she might have responded, “no honey, I’ll always love you.  I just don’t like what you did.”  That affirmation has to be repeated over and over so that we see the conceptual dissonance between love and non love. 

 The reinforcement of unconditional love helps us understand that there are things that are constant. Within the world of the moral and ethical constants are important, even though we may not fully understand them.  When, at our core we have these constants it gives us a grounding that makes connecting to one another and to ethical standards easier, even if the constants sometimes seem blurry.  Concepts such as empathy, rationality, and justice override and over shadow more mundane acts of purification and outward adherence.  Jesus said in Matt. 23: 25-26 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.  Blind Pharisee!  First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.”  Ethics is more than a set of rigid rules.  Ethics and morality reside in the core of our being.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

There’s a Jinn in the House

30 12 2009

Protect our children

Shortly after 9/11 our church embarked on a program to have meetings with Muslims in our community.  The purpose was to learn more about Islam and to see our Muslim brothers and sisters as individuals as opposed to being a monolithic group of fanatics.  For about a year we met numerous times in small groups and during that time I had the privilege of meeting some very fine people who were saddened and outraged by the acts of the few who had destroyed the Trade Center.  One of the men who I came to know and respect was an engineer and a Shiah Muslim.  One day we were having lunch and talking about our hopes and dreams for our children and grandchildren and he said, “I am worried that Jinn will invade my home and will take over my children”.  (a paraphrase).  I inquired about this term and after some struggling with the language he interpreted it as “demons”.  Still not understanding, I inquired further and he said that they were everywhere and all around us.  It was only then that I realized that his explanation was more than a mythical concept.  In fact, these Jinn were real.  They come through the television, on the air waves, in our media, in the internet and throughout our culture.  As we continued to talk, I realized that he and I both wanted the same things for our children and grandchildren—to be safe and hopefully to embrace our faith tradition.

 Last week, my wife and I got our weekly Netflix video, a cable series called Weeds.  It’s about a suburban housewife whose husband died from a heart attack early in his forties.  In order to maintain their lifestyle she became a drug dealer, selling Marijuana to all her suburban middle class adult friends.  In the series, Eight and nine year olds used language that even ten years ago would have been banned on TV and would be given a film an “R” rating.  Today, even on network TV the boundaries on language, sexuality and violence have been pushed back to levels that just a few years ago would have been considered unacceptable.  My wife only stayed for a few minutes, stating that the program was gross and she refused too see the whole series, but as I watched the program, I thought that if the life depicted in the series was anywhere near real life, then we have truly been invaded by Jinn.   

 If this program was an isolated incident, it might not be something to be concerned about.  But unfortunately it has become the norm.  More and more boundaries are being pushed back and we seem helpless to do anything about it.  Over the last weekend my wife and I stayed in a La Quinta in San Antonio.  We looked to see what was showing on the hotel TV.  I was surprised to see that there was a whole section of adult films.  Ten years ago that would never have been the case.  I was amused that there was a disclaimer that you had to be eighteen to view films on those channels.  I wondered who monitored the monitor.  Sex, violence and destruction are so prevalent in the media we have become anesthetized to it.  Or maybe that shouldn’t be the word. By seeing these depictions in the media our children and we, come to see these behaviors as acceptable and those behaviors are reinforced. They become what is known as a “community standard”.   I realize that my concern is one that has been debated and fought for centuries.  Can we censure free speech in some of its forms for the sake of preserving other moral and ethical standards?  The supreme court has often ruled on issues of free speech from whether someone can yell fire in a crowed theatre to Larry Flint and his magazine Hustler.  One of the current standards is “community standards”.  In 1973 a supreme court case established the Miller test concerning pornography.  It stated that there were three criteria establishing what was considered pornographic. In order for something to be considered pornographic all three criteria had to satisfied.  They were, that it appealed to prurient interests, that it was patiently offensives, and lacked serious literary, artistic, and political or scientific value.  This according to the court would be based on local standards so that something in Jackson Mississippi would have a different interpretation than what was the community standard in New York City.  As you well might guess the ruling did little to clarify the issue.  And as we have seen, little by little the media has been chipping away at what is considered as community standards and has done so on a national level.  Only periodically do citizens rise up and protest and then at great expense and personal stress.

 This article is not just about standards as they apply to pornography.  It also is about protecting children and giving other persons protection from offensive material being allowed in their homes.  It’s not enough to tell a parent just to monitor what their children watch on TV or at the movies or to install the V chip in their TV.  One of my sons does not have cable TV but both of his children go to friends houses that do have cable.  Then their’s the influence of the internet and other media.  Why should parents have to go to the extent that they have to in order to protect their children against what I have come to believe is home invasion from what my Muslim friend called Jinn.  Why should we be assaulted by internet material that is harmful to a person’s health. 

 It seems inconsistent that we are so concerned about lead paint on toys and protecting children from faulty car seats and seem so cavalier about what they are exposed to on TV or the internet.  Using the logic that it is a matter of parental responsibility of what children see or consume in the media, we would have to say that parents should be solely responsible for testing all toys for faulty and harmful construction of products used by children or for dangerous chemical additives in children’s food.  These are issues about morality but they’re also about ethics, because the attitude that seems to be prevalent is that anything goes and it’s an infringement on other person’s rights to have both strong moral and ethical community standards.  Our culture has long decided that the protection of our children is a primary concern of our society.  Whether it’s having laws about child labor or laws against abuse, even by parents or having laws protecting children as end user consumers, or education and healthcare for children, we know that our children need to be protected and are our future.  Because of the complexity of society, it is not possible for parents to know every harmful situation or to be in all places that children are exposed.

 It’s not enough to put some bogus disclaimer on an internet porn site or say that parents should use the V chip on their TV to block certain programs (the last time I saw anything about the V chip was from Bill Clinton).  And it’s not enough to just say that parents are the ones responsible for protecting their children.  It’s inconsistent with standards of morality, ethics and law that we have declared are sacred. 

It’s time that Christians, Jews, and Muslims and others concerned about children unite around the safety of our children.  Don’t let the Jinns around us fragment us in what we all want for our families—a safe place for our children to grow up to be what God has intended them to be.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.