More from Pennhurst

More photos from Pennhurst.

Lost Places

My children and I like 'lost places.' I've used photos from one such place, the Belchertown School [asylum], on previous posts. Recently, my son, some of his friends, and I investigated another 'school' for children with various kinds of disabilities, the Pennhurst State School and Hospital - orignally named the Eastern Pennsylvania Institution for the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic.

Pennhurst, as it is known among explorers of abandoned sites, has a history much like that of Belchertown and other such institutions. It was founded by people with good intentions, people who hoped to make the lives of the mentally ill, retarded, or severely disabled better than they were when those people were left to the vicissitudes of life among the 'normal.' But time, limited resources, and expansion beyond the reach of any good will turned the place into a failure and a nightmare for many of its inhabitants.

In the late 1970's, a woman sued Pennhurst on behalf of her daughter and others insitutionalized there. The case was Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital (446 F. Supp. 1295, 1327 (E.D. PA. 1978). The Philadelphia NBC station produced a series of reports on Pennhurst, entilted Suffer the Children (viewable here ). Eventually, the legal process led to a Supreme Court case, Pennhurst State School v. Halderman. There were several other legal battles, up through the late 1990's, but it was the earlier decisions that sealed the fate of Pennhurst. As happened with so many other large insitutuions, Pennhurst was closed down and its patients were sent to smaller community care arrangements or to other places, based on individual assessments.

There are the usual horror stories of abuse and neglect at Pennhurst - of children molested and beaten, of people who spent their entire lives there, of people insitutionalized for no more reason than their being inconvenient to their familes. What moves me about Pennhurst and other such places is not the stories of mistreatment, but the poignancy of attempts to do good ending up badly. Pennhurst, in particular, was originally a beautiful place, modestly intended to provide schooling and vocational training for no more than 500-600 men and boys. All too soon, it became a site for 'custodial' care of children and adults who were not expected to ever return to 'normal' life. At one point, Pennhurst housed up to 3,000 'patients.' Skimpy state support, insufficient and untrained staff, and public indifference brought it to its inevitable demise. Abandoned to vandals and scrappers, as well as to the press of nature, much of it is now in ruins. And, yet, one can still see the beauty that was there and feel not only the sorrows the inhabitants experienced but also the hopes that inspired the founders.

Non-Theism and Other Minority Views

The recent report of the American Religious Identification Survey and its mention in various outlets, including the NYT, has generated some heated discussion about ‘atheism,’ religion in the U.S., and related hot potatoes (for example: here, here, here, and here).
Given that the very term ‘atheism’ is controversial and variously defined, I prefer ‘non-theism.’ I’m a non-theist. Some non-theists apparently now feel the need to announce their pride in being such; at first, this struck me as odd. Why ought one to be proud of not believing that a purported supernatural entity exists? It is not quite like being proud to not believe in the existence of cats or molecules - things for which there is incontrovertible evidence such that not believing they exist would be a rather bold stance to take.
But, of course, it can be bold to say one does not believe in a named purported supernatural entity if one feels that many others do believe in that entity and look askance at anyone who does not. In other words, there really is a social difference between saying, “I do not believe in unicorns” and “I do not believe in God/gods.” At least, in our nation, there is a difference. Hence the news that the number of U.S. citizens who report no religious affiliation has doubled in recent years might well be heartening to those who have felt their status as non-believers to be a source of social isolation or condemnation. (Although, really, the survey results do not mean that the number of non-theists has doubled.)
I admit this comes as something of a surprise to me, because most of the people with whom I work and spend time are either non-theists or theists who do not think non-theists are subnormal, deviant, or unclean. As far as I can tell, they think we are like them, except that we do not believe in the supernatural entity/entities in which they believe. But, in reading some of the blogging on the emergence of organized and defiant non-theists, I have discovered that there are apparently sane and decent folks who have some very unattractive notions about non-theists. I think these are worth exploring.

1) Many theists appear to be convinced that objective morality is possible only if premised on a belief in [some] god[s]. Typically, what I have read assumes that the god in question is the Christian one, but it is not clear to me that this is a necessary element of the thesis.
2) Consequent on the first notion is the belief that non-theists cannot inculcate moral perspectives in their children. Predictably, our children will end up as drug-addicts, homosexuals, etc. (One comment I read predicted multiple tattooing.)
3) Many theists also seem to assume that one is either a theist or a materialist and determinist [what philosophers might term a ‘mechanist,’ a la Hobbes or La Mettrie]. In other words, they see no metaphysical positions other than one which requires the existence of a supernatural creator and one which is reductivist about mind [etc.] and denies human freedom.
4) At least some of the theists whose comments I have encountered labor under the misapprehension that non-theists necessarily come from broken homes or are former theists who had a bad experience with a particular denomination (Catholicism seems to be the special bogeyman, here).

Now, this is a complex collection of claims, and I do not say that every theist who abhors or dislikes non-theists accepts all of them. In fact, such theists may not accept any of these claims; they may simply think non-theists are abominable and let it go at that. But each is interesting, in its own way, and merits some serious response – as contrasted with mocking the theists’ belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Don’t mistake me: the FSM is funny and rather cute, but ridicule is not a good way to start a conversation. So, let’s look at the Four Theses in turn.

1) Atheists cannot believe in or defend objective moral standards.
I have to say that most of the ‘arguments’ in support of this claim are question begging ones of the type: “Only God can provide an objective ground for morality; therefore, without belief in God, one cannot assert objective standards.” What puzzles me, however, is the inability of those who espouse this view to hear any alternatives. So, for example, one might point out the many, many non-theistic [especially, non-Christian] objective moral views with which the history of thought has favored us, but the denier simply denies that these have any merit. Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Mill – no matter how illustrious the name, the response is simple denial. Not Reason, not Nature, not the Human Condition or Human Flourishing – nothing but a god will do the trick.
If one goes on the attack, so to speak, the results are much the same. One can point out that either (a) god[s] accepts the Good and Right because they are the Good and Right – in which case no god is needed, or that (b) god[s] simply selects the Good and Right – in which case the Good and the Right are not objectively grounded at all; they are just the choices of some entity we hope will not make a mess of it. The response will be simple denial [at best].
2) Atheists cannot pass on moral views to their children.
Let’s face it, this is just peculiar on many levels. Is the underlying idea that the children of non-theists are more resistant to parental instruction than the children of theists? If so, it is not clear that this is a bad thing; on the other hand, it seems fairly unlikely in light of the number of young people who reject the religious views of their parents. Perhaps it is that the children of non-theists, once they discover the shortcomings of their merely-mortal parents, will not have the back-up authority of a third party as is available to the children of theists. At best, this would suggest that the children of theists are less likely to fall away from the moral teachings of their parents than are the children of non-theists. Hardly equivalent to the original claim that non-theists just cannot pass on their moral views. Besides which, if the kids decide Mom and Dad are full of it about morality, why should they follow the old folks on religious doctrine? Youthful rejection of the flawed ‘rents is rarely measured or selective.
And, of course, we have not touched on the assumption that the religiously-based morality that Mom and Dad want to pass on is the correct or best one. We need not even challenge the objective moral wisdom of the divinity in question,here.

Perhaps Mom/Dad/the minister/priest/priestess/reverend/rabbi/whatever has got the god’s/gods’ message wrong? There’s a dreadful prospect: generation after generation accepting moral falsehood as the truth. Religiously-based beliefs in slavery as natural and good are a useful example of this possibility.
3) Non-theists must be mechanists.
So, a blog is not the place to rehearse centuries of metaphysics. Perhaps it is sufficient to suggest that those who think this is the only alternative to an ontology based on supernatural beings and/or creators do some reading about the history of western and eastern metaphysics? Not that anyone has to become an expert. But, just get a sense of what is and has been out there. Heck, just take a look at Aristotle [not St. Thomas’ ‘Aristotle,’ but Aristotle himself, please]. Or, look at contemporary physics, which is really not the reductionist materialism of Newton or Bacon. (Pace Newton, who said that god is “everywhere and everywhen.”) And, if you want non-theists arguing for the possibility of human autonomy and responsibility – well, just read some contemporary ethics.
Now, I do realize that Richard Dawkins, and others, have provided fuel for this particular ideological fire. But, again, branch out, read, look at the diversity of metaphysical views which do not posit or do not require a supernatural creator for explanatory purposes. J. S. Mill may have been mistaken about many things, but he was surely correct that belief supported by knowledge, reflection, and self-scrutiny is more meaningful – and stronger – than belief clung to unthinkingly.
4) Non-theists are the products of unhappy homes or unhappy experiences with [someone else’s] religion.
This is an empirical claim, and evidence is not offered. It might be interesting to have a respectable polling group do a survey of non-theists and theists to see what their backgrounds are. However [ANECDOTAL WARNING!], none of my non-theist colleagues is the product of a broken home nor of a failed Catholic upbringing, as far as I know. Mostly, they just cannot find any good reason to believe in a god-like entity and, being committed to the Rule of Reason, do not commit themselves to belief in what does not seem to exist. My partner is a ‘recovered’ Catholic, but his non-theism seems to be independent of his hostility to the Catholic church; again, theism just does not make sense to him.
****************************************************************************

In closing, I want to mention one line of theistic commentary on non-theists that I came across. Here, the claim is made that, yes, we non-theists can ‘be ethical.’ I appreciate that. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about some of the ‘defense’ of us non-believers:

Atheists are people who, whether they like it or not, have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). They are subject to the same laws of our country (and other countries), and they have a sense of right and wrong. They often work with people who are religious and have ethical standards, as well as non-believers who are don't, so they are exposed to all sorts of moral behavior. In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them. Besides, things like robbery, lying, stealing, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people.
Nevertheless, some Christians raise the question, "What is to prevent an atheist from murdering and stealing? After all, they have no fear of God and no absolute moral code." The answer is simple: Atheists are capable of governing their own moral behavior and getting along in society the same as anyone else.

So, it seems that my imagined moral decision-making is simply reading off “god’s” rules as written on my heart. Well, substitute ‘Light of Reason’ for ‘god[s]’ and I might agree.
Reference is made, in defense of my capacity to be ethical, to my need to meet social norms and have a ‘nice’ life. I don’t object to that ‘defense,’ as far as it goes. But, I do object to the implication that I will shift my conduct and character according to what is advantageous to me or according to what my particular society decrees through its laws. The implication is that non-theists cannot act on principle. This is false. With no belief in a supernatural creator or other supernatural beings, I do act contrary to my self-interest, even contrary to the interests of those I love. Principled conduct is not the private domain of the theist. Indeed, we non-theists have to be rather careful about our selection of principles, precisely because to fail to meet them is to fail our own rationally scrutinized aspirations – not simply to annoy a deity.

Liberal Elite[s]

"...if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties—if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I am proud to be a liberal." John F. Kennedy

HAPPY SPRING

Oh, Yes They Are

that stupid. As I did not do anything for April Fools’ Day, I am offering short bits on real fools.

1) North Texas Representative Betty Brown raised a stir when she suggested that Asian-Americans might change their difficult sounding names to make it easier on poll officials – and other Americans. Betty’s immortal words:

Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?

The first thing to note is that Betty was addressing the representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans, Ramey Ko. (There’s a tough one to pronounce.)

To make it worse - or better, depending on your sense of humor - Betty felt compelled to carry on:

Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?

Betty has ‘apologized,’ after several days of refusing to do so. Really, it was all just a misunderstanding. Presumably, someone has pointed out to Betty that Chinese Americans who vote are, in fact, here and citizens.

2) Brown’s being a Republican has garnered some predictable attention, so let’s turn to a Democratic legislator: Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein of Massachusetts.

Kathi-Anne has proposed amendments to the state’s porn laws to include any photographs or video of ‘elders’ naked or engaged in lewd activity. ‘Elders,’ here, means anyone sixty years of age or older. Some of us better get those pics taken soon.

As Feminist Philosophers observes, The law is not limited to hardcore porn, nor is it restricted to commercial porn. Elderly lovers who take rude pictures of each other will be liable for prosecution.

Especially illuminating is that the amendments treat ‘elders’ and the mentally disabled in one fell swoop – as equally incapable of governing their own lives.

An additional fact of Kathi-Anne’s legislative service worthy of note is her promise to have the Flufflernutter declared the Official Sandwich of the Sate of Massachusetts.

Some bulbs never light.

Retreat of the Religous Right?

Following a lead from Liberal Values, I read an article in the Washington Post written by Kathleen Parker entitled “Is a New Generation of Christians Finished with Politics?” Partly because I hope the answer is a resounding ‘YES!’ I am interested in what Parker describes as a “generational shift” in the Christian Right’s attitude towards political activism to advance ‘Christian values.’

According to Parker, younger Christian fundamentalists believe their elders have compromised those values for a place in the political limelight – specifically within the Republican Party. These younger folks, and some older ones such as Cal Thomas, argue that “the heart of Christianity is in the home, not the halls of Congress or even the courts. And the route to a more moral America is through good works — service, prayer and education — not political lobbying.”

Indeed, Parker notes that James Dobson, former head of Focus on the Family, recently acknowledged that the cultural battles near and dear to the hearts of his followers have been lost. Thus, the compromise of principles has been for naught, in the eyes of many. She quotes Thomas as saying, “If people who call themselves Christians want to see any influence in the culture, then they ought to start following the commands of Jesus[,] and people will be so amazed that they will be attracted to Him. The problem isn’t political. The problem is moral and spiritual.”

I want to be honest, here: I am glad to hear this news largely because I am tired of the culture wars and particularly of the Christian Right’s prominent place in U.S. politics in recent years. While having a conversation with students after a class this past week, I realized that they cannot remember a time when politics, especially at the national level, was not permeated with religious language and religious ‘issues.’ The possibility of someone’s running for the Presidency and not flaunting his/her religious bona fides is utterly foreign to my students. That Americans have not always been politically preoccupied with school prayer, creationism, abortion, and same-sex marriage fascinates them. I, myself, can hardly remember what we used to discuss and dispute. Guns and butter, I guess.

Yes, I would like to get this stuff off the main page of our public life. And I would be very happy if our state and national coffers were no longer tapped to adjudicate the newest effort to undermine science education or to slip prayer-by-another-name into every school and public event. I would be thrilled to never again see Republican politicians and elected officials cravenly pander to the Christian Right; we might have a two-party system which offers us a choice worthy of serious reflection. Holy cow, we might hear no more of the Palin Family Circus!

But, I have other reasons for hoping this reported retreat from politics by the Religious Right is accurate.

One is based on a certain –brace yourselves – respect for religious faith. I’m a complete non-theist and not even vaguely ‘spiritual;’ nonetheless, I recognize that faith plays a profound role in the lives of many people. Further, for all the historical horrors we can trace to religious fervor, faith has also played a moderating role – even a civilizing one. Our increasingly secular world [parts of it] is an historical anomaly, and we have yet to see how it will all work out. My own guess is that it will be an improvement, but I still appreciate the place of faith in individual lives.

Thus, I have been sorry to see people of faith in this country falling over backwards to de-exceptionalize religiosity. I do not mean [here] what I regard as the vulgar tendency towards bumper-sticker religion. Rather, I have in mind the desperate efforts to substitute ‘moments of silence’ for prayer, to have religious monuments approved for public display on the grounds that they are merely historical artifacts or pretty decorations, and in general to deny that religious views are different in kind from non-religious comprehensive views. For whatever’s-sake, if you want to pray, then pray and be happy to do it where it is appropriate. If you want to keep the deep meaning of your monuments, let them be removed from public parks and playgrounds. And if you live in this country and feel you are excluded from public discourse because of your faith, do not argue for entry by claiming that evolutionary theory and atheism are just other religions.

My other reason for hoping that religion will gracefully back away from the public stage is personal, but equally grounded in respect for perspectives other than my own. I am afraid that I am becoming what I have previously derided as militantly atheistic, even anti-religionist. I’m going to be blunt: the ugliness, intolerance, and prejudice that have been prominently displayed by many on the Christian Right in recent years is turning me into an intolerant and prejudiced person; ugliness may yet be lurking in the depths of my psyche. I do not want to become such a person.

That I find myself resenting those whose discourse and political influence ‘make’ me feel intolerant is not helping. It has been a cumulative effect, and I have only recently become aware of it. No doubt, the rise of militant Islam is a factor, as I watch the world become infected with the same kind of religious antipathies that characterized – and haunted - Europe for centuries. But it is what has been happening here, in my country, that has most affected me.

So, please, young Christian fundamentalists, keep your faith and let us share our nation – if not for the sake of my soul, then for your own.

Photograph from The Reading Eagle

Normalcy and Disability

In commenting on a post of Michael Berube's on Crooked Timber, I found myself thinking - as I have many times - about the meaning of 'normalcy' and 'disability' and about our on-going efforts to find ways to think and speak about both.

No one wants to be denigrated by others, and it is wrong of us to denigrate others on the basis of conditions that can be characterized as ‘disabilities.’ But I think we go too far in our efforts to avoid being denigrating or discriminatory if we suggest that everything is a matter of ‘difference’ or diverse ‘abilities.’ It may be generally regarded, in our culture, as offensive to refer to someone as ‘abnormal’ because of a physical, psychological, or cognitive disability. But our current views about polite language and our current state of linguistic sensitivity do not eliminate the fact that there is some range of human functioning accurately – if imprecisely – denoted ‘normal.’

My mother was deaf for most of her life. Had she lived to discover others insisting that she was not handicapped but ‘differently-abled,’ she would have been infuriated. Being deaf was a burden to her, not just an alternative way of experiencing the world. Perhaps this was because she became deaf at about age 7; so, she was acutely aware of having lost something. Perhaps those who are deaf from birth, not having this sense of loss, do not feel burdened. Indeed, insofar as the deaf can be quite high-functioning, it is not surprising that Def culturists argue that it is not a genuine ‘disability.’

Nonetheless, it cannot be wrong to acknowledge that humans are better off, ceteris paribus, when all their senses work. In the same way - perhaps less precisely - mental disabilities are not as desirable as mental ‘normalcy.’ The standard of normalcy may be vague, but there is meaning to the idea of the normal. Whatever the language we use – handicapped, disabled, X-challenged – to be unable, because of a physiological condition, to do something that or experience something as the majority of humans can is less than optimal.

Those of us who are old enough to begin feeling the debilitating effects of aging typically do not think of it simply as another stage of life, just as jolly as being young and hale. Our failing vision, failing hearing, aching joints, and decreased strength are not merely 'differences' - they are changes for the worse. Like permanent disabilities, these effects of aging are perfectly ‘natural’ in at least one sense of that term. Indeed, they are inevitable for all ‘normal’ humans who live long enough to experience them. It is unsurprising that we would like to find ways to prevent or minimize those changes. So too, it is reasonable that we want to prevent, or minimize the effects of, permanent disabilities.

None of this leads, de facto, to a denigration of persons who are disabled. My mother was a strong and capable person, and to some extent her deafness may have contributed to her strength. But she did not think it was desirable to be deaf, and I believe she was correct.

Photograph from Belchertown, Winter 2007

Murray and Philosophy

Well, that was a rant. What can I say? While, as a liberal, I am uncomfortable with thick theories of The Good and collectivists' inclinations to impose them on those of us insufficiently enlightened to realize what is good for us, I accept this as an important tradition in socio-political thought. But, when someone wants to impose their vision of The Good only on others, I become suspicious. And when, as in Murray's case, the reality of the vision will cause suffering for those on whom it is imposed, I begin to get downright angry. Hence, the rant. (How Bette Davis got in there is another question.)

Leaving ranting behind, let's think about Murray's reference to Aristotelian 'happiness' - eudaimonia, presumably. Murray's choice of Aristotle as an authority for his own view of human flourishing is odd, because Aristotle quite famously denied the possibility of true flourishing for those who must labor and toil for a living. Indeed, Aristotle was confident that only those favored with enough wealth to pursue higher intellectual pursuits could be truly 'happy;' working for one's living meant too little leisure time for philosophy and political activity.

Furthermore, unlike -arguably - the Roman Stoics, Aristotle did not hold that suffering or misfortune make one a better person. He certainly did not think them conducive to well-being. To fully flourish as a human, according to Aristotle, one must achieve excellence (arête) in all modes of human functioning: intellectual activities, physical health and attractiveness, and what we would call psychological or emotional well-being.

Murray seems to be conflating Aristotelian virtue ethics not only with Roman Stoicism, as noted, but also with Nietzschean transcendence through struggle. The latter element explains Murray's concern for 'transcendence' over ordinary comforts and pleasures. But this is not an Aristotelian notion. Aristotle was very much a thinker of the here-and-now, of this world and of living well in this world.

In fact, if Murray wants the average American to have a chance at Aristotelian flourishing, he should advocate for social structures that would provide the average person with a life of comfort and leisure comparable to that enjoyed by Aristotle and other Greek males of his class - absent the slaves, of course. Such a life would be the envy even of those nanny-state-coddled upper-middle class Europeans. But, to offer that chance for happiness to most of our population would require extending our 'safety-net' far beyond what we currently have - far beyond what the Europeans have.

And this is why Murray is not really calling for our society to enable Aristotelian lives of flourishing for all. It is the elite classes he addresses who will have the opportunity for Aristotelian eudaimonia; the rest of us will get Nietzschean suffering and struggle.

Which brings us back to hypocrisy. You go first, Dr. Murray. After all, what does not kill you will make you stronger.

The Grass is Greener - and More Authentic - Outside the Gated Community

I seem to be on a hypocrisy kick this week.

Here, we have a nice example from the inimitable Charles Murray. Yes, the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life has favored us with two outings of his celebration of American exceptionalism and his fearfulness for the collapse of our social vitality. First, in his Irving Kristol Lecture at the AIE, The Europe Syndrome and the Challenge to American Exceptionalism, and in a shorter version of the same in the Washington Post, “Thank God America Isn't Like Europe – Yet,” Murray bemoans the weakening of the American character, the creeping insipidity of contemporary life, and the growing tendency of U.S. citizens to want comfortable lives.

Murray’s ‘argument’ has been nicely sliced and diced by Damon Linker at the New Republic (“Murray’s Miserable, Happy Americans”) and by John Holbo at Crooked Timber (“The Totalitarian Temptation and All That”), so I’ll forego the analysis and head straight for the rant.

Murray’s main concern is that the ‘welfare state’ is taking all the challenge out of American lives, leaving us coddled and without a sense of deep purpose (“transcendence” seems to be his preferred term) just as, according to his two anecdotes from visits to Sweden and Switzerland, has happened to Europeans. Linker aptly summarizes Murray’s view thus:

....because genuine happiness, for Murray, requires spending one's life striving to overcome an endless series of challenges and obstacles, the lavish European safety net ensures that individual Europeans will never experience spiritual contentment or satisfaction. The assumption seems to be that a life of leisure -- or at least a life with open access to health care, quality child care, generous unemployment insurance, and 4 - 6 weeks of guaranteed vacation time a year -- will be an unhappy one.

In Murray’s own words,

…. the European model is fundamentally flawed because, despite its material successes, it is not suited to the way that human beings flourish—it does not conduce to Aristotelian happiness.

Let’s put aside for the moment the lack of real data (he swears it’s out there), the apparent ignorance of differences among European nations and peoples, even the strangely unexplicated allusion to Aristotle (more on that next time). Let’s just focus on the message: suffering, difficulty, and insecurity add zest to life; indeed, without real struggle and more or less constant peril, we can never achieve true happiness.

I think there is some plausibility to this claim, or to a more carefully stated and considered version of it. A life utterly without challenge, a life of indulgence, a life that never plumbs deeper than the purchase of the next material ‘must have’ – this would be a life lacking vitality, meaning, and purpose. In other words, the lives of the most advantaged members of the leisure classes are not examples of human flourishing ( a far more Aristotelian term than ‘happiness’). But this is not what Murray is on about. No, he is arguing that guaranteed access to basic health care, affordable child care, and some degree of material security prevents us – as citizens of a nation - from flourishing.

One might find this a bracing, Spartan-like – perhaps, early Stoic – vision of the good life: hard, demanding, and rewarding to those who fight the good fight. Really, very John Wayne western film style. And that’s fine if that is the life one chooses for oneself. But Murray is not recommending this as a self-selected lifestyle; rather, he is urging ‘the elites’ (his phrase) to impose this life on everyone.

More precisely, he wants it imposed on the poor and disadvantaged. He does not quite say that, of course, but it is the only reasonable inference. Taking away the social safety net will not impose a rough and tumble life on the already advantaged, after all; they do not need the net. It is only the disadvantaged and the close-to-being-disadvantaged who will enjoy the benefits of being cast into the stormy seas to swim or sink. Murray and his ilk will watch, no doubt with envy, from the safety of their privately owned yachts while the lucky masses thrill at the chance for true happiness, a chance the wistful wealthy will never have. We can imagine the pitying looks with which the struggling swimmers will look back at those safely on-board and the joy with which they will sink beneath the waves, knowing themselves to have found transcendent meaning in their lives and deaths. Perhaps, if they are very fortunate, they can watch their children drown before them.

Of course, romanticizing the lives of simple folk is a tradition of sorts. But Murray is not pretending that lives of sorrow, hunger, illness, and toil are other than they are. Rather, he celebrates precisely those painful possibilities as necessary conditions for meaningful happiness. This is not romanticism; this is hypocrisy. For, do we picture Murray giving up his own rather privileged position to leap into the waters of strife? Is he suggesting that the pitiable rich should be stripped of their wealth and privileges and made to work as janitors (for whom he seems to have some special respect) or dish washers so that they, too, can have a chance at happiness? No. He is encouraging the privileged to use their power to force this idiosyncratic vision of the Good Life on those not in a position to either choose it or decline it.

I cannot think of any way to understand this other than as hypocrisy. Murray is an educated person (B.A. in History from Harvard; Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT) and, if we resist political hyperbole, he seems to be sane. Murray gestures towards scolding the elites for separating themselves from the ‘real’ people (janitors), but he does not suggest they leave their gated communities to live in slums or marginal neighborhoods. Instead, he seems to recommend a bit of uplifting slumming. You know, sort of like Bette Davis’ ‘Jezebel’ getting down and homey with the pickaninnies on the lawn, all authentic-like while the silly Yankee wife of Bette’s former beau gets politically-correctly upset about an impending duel between the leading men. Or, like those young college men of the thirties and forties who took their dates to Harlem to see black performers be earthy, in white-only clubs.

I’ll end my rant with a bit from John Holbo’s 2003 blog piece on a similarly hypocritical ‘let the little people suffer for the sake of their better selves’ musing from David Frum:

But if it is good for the poor and middle-class to suffer and toil, surely it would do the well-to-do some good as well. We could stiffen upper-classes spines quick by raising the top tax bracket to, say, 95%, while firing all the cops, letting all the criminals out of jail, giving them guns, and busing them to the richest neighborhoods before letting them go. Not a good idea, obviously, but a lot of rich people would learn a lot of important, genuinely meaningful life lessons.

Surely, this would only be fair. Why should the poor and the marginal classes get all the advantages of meaningfulness, while the wealthy only get health care, security, and comfort?

Still Angry, After All These Years

This probably falls into the 'I'll be sorry for this' category, but what the heck.

COURT REQUIRES FDA TO REVISIT ‘PLAN B’

Tummino v. Torti, (ED NY, March 29, 2009). A NY Federal District court ruled that the FDA must revisit its current ruling on the ‘morning after pill,’ Plan B. Under well-evidenced political pressure from the Bush administration, the FDA dillied and dallied between 2001 and 2006, when it [finally] ruled that Plan B – first approved in 1998 – would be available over the counter only to women 18 years of age and older, with proof of age for the pharmacist. Moreover, the OTC drug had to be kept behind the pharmacy counter. Any woman under the age of 18 needed a doctor’s prescription, which effectively made the ‘morning after’ use of the drug unavailable to the vast majority of women less than 18 years of age.

The remarkable history of Plan B’s wanderings through the Bush FDA is recounted at the

Center for Reproductive Rights website. The CRP was among the petitioners seeking to force the FDA to, first, arrive at a ruling and, secondly, to change its politically determined ruling, once made. Among the highlights of this strange history, as revealed in depositions and testimony noted by the CRP, are these:

“Late Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004: After a panel of FDA experts recommends approval of the Plan B application, Dr. Steven Galson, the head of the office responsible for making the final decision, informs his staff that regular procedures won’t be followed this time, and that they won’t make the final decision. (Jenkins deposition)”
“Dec-Jan 17, 2004: Galson confesses to a co-worker that he has to reject the Plan B application because he’s afraid he’ll lose his job. (Jenkins deposition) Dr. Janet Woodcock, the second in command at the FDA(??), tells a colleague that the agency has to reject the application, then approve the drug later with an age restriction in order to ‘appease the administration's constituents.’ (Houn deposition)”

The full decision is more than worth reading, both for its detailed analysis of the intrusion of political and religion-based intrusions into the drug approval process and for the clarity of Judge Korman’s opinion.

Some highlights of the opinion:

“Plan B is an emergency contraceptive that can be used to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy after sexual intercourse. When used as directed, it can reduce the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. Plan B acts mainly by stopping the release of an egg from an ovary. It may also prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg that has been released or, if fertilization has already occurred, block implantation of the resulting embryo in the uterus. Plan B does not have any known serious or long-term side effects, though it may have some mild and short-term side effects, such as nausea or abdominal pain, in some users.” (emphasis added)

Compare this with comments from the Christian News Wire:

“Ignoring patient safety and the damage high dose steroids have on developing female bodies, Korman petulantly insisted the FDA revisit the controversial previous ruling on the abortion drug. Hundreds of women have had serious side effects from Plan B as it has killed millions of preborn babies.”

Sure, because, as we all know, Federal judges are frequently ‘petulant’ in their decisions and far-right Christian news sources are the authority on women’s health matters – more authoritative than the FDA’s medical scientists who recommended that Plan B be more widely available:

“The FDA rejected that application too despite nearly uniform agreement among FDA scientific review staff that women of all ages could use Plan B without a prescription safely and effectively.” (from Tummino v. Torti ; emphasis added)

Admittedly, Judge Korman does seem to have been angered by the Bushies’ shenanigans in interfering with the FDA process (all emphases added):

“…the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims is that the FDA’s decisions regarding Plan B – on the Citizen Petition and the SNDAs – were arbitrary and capricious because they were not the result of reasoned and good faith agency decision-making. Plaintiffs are right. The FDA repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons and, on two occasions, only took action on Plan B to facilitate confirmation of Acting FDA Commissioners, whose confirmation hearings had been held up due to these repeated delays.”

“These political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned agency decision-making. Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA’s course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency’s normal procedures.”

“FDA upper management, including the Commissioner, wrested control over the decision-making on Plan B from staff that normally would issue the final decision on an over-the-counter switch application; the FDA’s denial of non-prescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had empanelled to advise it on Plan B; and the Commissioner – at the behest of political actors – decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews.”

Now, there is much that could be said here, from this being yet another instance of the Bush administration’s obsession with courting the religious right to its indifference to science to its eagerness to corrupt any process for political purposes. But, what intrigues me is the persistence with which self-proclaimed ‘pro-life’ advocates claim to be concerned with the health of women. You know, the already-born and old enough to be indisputably full persons kind. ( Remember when good old C. Everett Koop infuriated the same group of folks by announcing that – despite his expectations to the contrary – there was no evidence that having abortions seriously harmed the psychological well-being of most women who had gone through the experience? )

I don’t buy it. Never have, never will. In the case of Plan B, the façade is especially thin. There is no evidence that there are any serious side effects for any notable number of women who use the medication to prevent pregnancy. Put another way, Plan B is as ‘harmful’ to most women as, maybe, aspirin is to most people. (Just the facts, Ma’am.) And, if we were to think about the ‘side-effects’ of pregnancy – particularly unwanted pregnancy – the possible ill effects of Plan B pale by comparison.

Opponents of Plan B and other contraceptives are not genuinely concerned with the health of women or girls. This is a dodge to cover the on-going effort to impose on the rest of us the rather odd notion that fertilized eggs are '[pre-born] babies' . Since the imposition has not succeeded epistemically, those who adhere to this notion of personhood try to achieve their conception [pun intended] by coercing others in practice.

The falseness of this dodge is offensive enough to those of us into that whole reality-based thing. The hypocrisy is worse. I recognize that ‘hypocrisy’ is now a much devalued accusation. But think about it: these are the same people who claim that anyone who has an abortion or uses an abortifacient is a murderer, that women/girls who become pregnant outside of marriage are sinners [‘sluts,’ in the vernacular], and that pregnant women/girls should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term – their mental and physical health be damned.

So, thanks for the crocodile tears, but I would prefer if these people kept their private religious views, their peculiar biological notions, and their choices for themselves out of our government, our law, and other people’s lives.

Yup, still angry after all these years.

The Flower Show

The Philadelphia Flower Show is an annual event that draws visitors from all over the nation. Within the relatively drab confines of the Convention Center, the Show participants create gardens and garden vignettes of astonishing complexity, typically inspired by a governing theme. Trees, shrubs, ponds and other water features are brought together with such skill that the visitor can easily forget she is indoors at all. Additionally, there are competition displays on a smaller scale; my favorites are the bonsai display, the ‘table-setting’ display, and the ‘window box' display. Of course, there is a large section for vendors of anything remotely related to gardens and gardening of every type.
I have to admit to being somewhat underwhelmed this year. It may have been my lingering flu or the theme – Bella Italiana – which muted my enjoyment, or it may be that contributors were feeling the pinch of a poor economy and invested less profligately than usual. Or, it may be that I have been spoiled by the spectacular shows of recent years and could not see this year’s show with appropriately appreciative eyes.
At any rate, I post some pics. (I did think the lighting, which is usually low, was especially dim this year.)

Off For A Break

I’m heading to the Philadelphia Flower Show, on my annual Spring pilgrimage . I’ll return with pictures.

Advertising and Stating the Obvious

This one bothered me for several days as I surfed about the WWW:

There is a film titled "The God Who Wasn't There.' It seems to be a film debunking Christianity, primarily on historical grounds. Ok; I get that. What I don't get is the film's advertisment, which features this line from Newsweek "Irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed."

Well really, how could it not be 'irreverent' to believers? And, how would it be 'irreverent' to non-believers?

Am I just being fussy?

Race, Stereotypes, and Sheer Idiocy

A CA mayor is resigning (maybe) after being outed by a black woman to whom he sent a fundraising email depicting the White House front lawn as - yes - a watermelon patch. His catch line: "No Easter egg hunt this year." Even better, Mayor Dean Grose claimed that he did not know there was a stereotype linking African-Americans and watermelon-eating. Well, no, of course not. The choice of a watermelon patch was just, you know, coincidental. Because, when one thinks 'no eggs' one naturally thinks 'watermelons,' instead.

Dissing the Ancients, Again

In “Naked Strong Evaluation” (Dissent online), Andrew Koppelman reviews Charles Taylor’s new book, A Secular Age. The book is also reviewed in the NYTimes by J. P. Diggins. Neither reviewer is terribly sympathetic with Taylor’s critique of secularism, but Koppelman is most interested in Taylor’s views on human rights. According to Koppelman, Taylor believes “that secularism and Christianity reveal a common ancestry in their shared commitment to human rights—a commitment that does not follow from atheism as such.” Although Koppelman seems to accept this premise, he argues that secularism has the advantage in requiring fewer ‘leaps of faith.’

What puzzles me about Koppelman’s review, and Taylor’s work, is their shared conviction that “the idea of human rights, at least in the West,” emerged “from Christian doctrine.” Koppelman claims that Taylor has done a “more thorough” job of showing this than anyone else, and I do not feel I am in a position to debate that assessment. But I think we can debate the claim itself.

It is not a new claim or an unfamiliar one, by any means. Christian religionists frequently assert that human equality and human rights are specifically Christian notions. This overlooks the fact of the derivative character of much Christian thought. With respect to human equality and human rights, we ought to look first to the Roman Stoics and their conception of the human community, humanitas, and the ius gentium, or law of peoples (often translated as ‘Natural Law’). Given Taylor’s rather longstanding debate with Martha Nussbaum, his overlooking this Stoic connection is surprising.

Now, the disclaimer/caveat/mea culpa: I have not read Taylor’s new book. So, as I said above, I’m not in a position to disagree with Koppelman’s claim that Taylor has done a particularly good job of locating the origins of human rights discourse exclusively in Christian intellectual history. Perhaps Taylor has surpassed Alasdair MacIntyre’s dismissal of the ancients from the arena of human rights discourse in After Virtue; that would not be terribly difficult. I promise that once the snow has melted I’ll get the Taylor book. But, unless he can do more than insist that the Stoic conception of human community and equality just wasn’t a source of Christian thought, I’m not going to be moved by this newest effort at Christian revisionism. After all, can’t Christianity find enough to be proud of in its own intellectual history without claiming utter originalism?

Better Picture for This Stage

The pic below was taken by my daughter at an abandoned prison. Cool, but probably not suitable for the 'neonatal' metaphor.

Be Nice - I'm Just Starting

This site is in its neonatal stage. I assume it will grow and thrive with adequate care. On the other hand, it could shrivel and die if I lose interest. We'll just have to see.