Disclaimer: This post isn't going to be about ethics.
It was a real pleasure to meet Peter Elkind the other day. He was way more humble and down-to-earth than I thought he would be. In fact, I found him to be kind of awkward -- but in a good way. I like awkward. It's real.
Anyway, I got to hear him talk in my business journalism class about what it was like reporting on some of those big, sticky stories like the BP oil spill and Enron, and listening to him really solidified a feeling for me -- that this is what I want to do with my life. I mean, this is it. I'm pretty sure I could do this every day for the rest of my life. I at least want to find out.
He just sounded so sure when he was talking about those stories -- about the people he confronted, the questions he asked, the words he wrote and wrote and wrote. He sounded like he didn't think he had any other choice, that this is just the way you do things. And that certainty was comforting because I guess I can relate.
I graduate in just 20 days with a bachelor of arts degree in news-editorial journalism and philosophy, and I think I am ready. I think I'm ready to learn from the Peter Elkinds of the world, to walk in their footsteps until I can cut my own path through that forest. I think I'm ready to give it a shot.
So, here's to Peter Elkind. He really brightened up my day, week, life. He's one of those salt-of-the-earth journalists, and I hope that one day I can be a little bit more like him.
Thank you, Peter.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Under the Palaver Tree
With the Buffett Rule and Palaver Trees, I think the world
would be a much better place.
The Senate blocked a measure Monday that would allow open
debate of the affectionately dubbed Buffett Rule, which would require the super-rich
to pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent. It came down to the party lines. The
Democrats were just nine votes short of the 60 they needed to move the measure
forward.
These days, it seems like congress can’t do anything without
bickering. Each side is so busy ensuring its place and gearing up for the next
election that the important issues they should be discussing are overshadowed
by each side’s attempt to get one over on the other. They’re like children in
the sandbox, kicking up dust and playing tug of war with their favorite toy.
But Mommy never comes to the rescue like in real life.
If we forced the members of congress to sit under the Palaver
Tree to discuss issues like higher tax rates for the rich, they might just come
to a consensus. They would have to, or we wouldn’t allow them to leave that
spot. We should amend the Constitution already because this system doesn’t seem
to be working out so well. Each member of the community would be represented
under the tree – from the super-rich to the super-super-rich to the dirt poor –
so no perspective was excluded. The end product of the discussion under the
tree would be harmony amongst all in attendance, not some arbitrary, alienated
version of the truth (whatever that is). The goal would be a consensus upon
which all could agree, and it would not matter how long it would take to reach
that consensus. Congress wouldn’t be concerned with some looming election; it
would be concerned with what’s right in front of it. For once.
Mother Nature
In order to determine whether it is morally upright or not to eat meat, one would first have to ascribe to a certain system of morality. For instance, if you believe that murder is wrong, then you have to define what murder is: the intentional killing of a living thing. (That's one way to describe it anyway.) In this scenario, eating meat would be morally wrong. But if this were the claim, then eating vegetables would be morally impermissible, and that just can't be right. What else are we supposed to eat?
I tend to think that morality is a human-made convention and that nothing is inherently wrong, as repugnant as that sounds. However, I do believe that nature has an order of its own and that we should adhere to that order to preserve life. Nature determines the things that we ought to do because nature rules us. We are products of nature, so we shouldn't go against it. Mother Nature is my god, I guess you could say. And nature reveres life. Nature's purpose is to sustain life on the planet -- to create it and sustain it -- but new life only comes in the wake of death. Spring arrives after winter concludes. Death is the other side of life.
So, I do not think that it is wrong to eat meat. But if morality is a system of that which we ought to do, then I would say that treating animals cruelly in the process of food production is something we ought not to do. In that sense, it is morally impermissible.
Kant would say it is morally impermissible to treat a living creature as a mere means to an end. I think this applies to animals, as well, for they are alive and sentient in their own ways. Humans cannot pretend to know the inner-workings of the minds of animals, as much as they would like to, but I believe that animals are at a similar level of consciousness as human beings. It just presents itself in a different manner. So, it is morally permissible to kill animals for food as long as they are treated as ends in themselves, not just a means.
Nature would not argue that you shouldn't use the resources of this planet to survive. Should we exploit those resources? No. Should we treat those resources as mere means? No. Should we revere those resources and treat them as ends in themselves? Yes. Emphatically yes. Nature urges us to treat all life with respect, even when we are destroying it.
I tend to think that morality is a human-made convention and that nothing is inherently wrong, as repugnant as that sounds. However, I do believe that nature has an order of its own and that we should adhere to that order to preserve life. Nature determines the things that we ought to do because nature rules us. We are products of nature, so we shouldn't go against it. Mother Nature is my god, I guess you could say. And nature reveres life. Nature's purpose is to sustain life on the planet -- to create it and sustain it -- but new life only comes in the wake of death. Spring arrives after winter concludes. Death is the other side of life.
So, I do not think that it is wrong to eat meat. But if morality is a system of that which we ought to do, then I would say that treating animals cruelly in the process of food production is something we ought not to do. In that sense, it is morally impermissible.
Kant would say it is morally impermissible to treat a living creature as a mere means to an end. I think this applies to animals, as well, for they are alive and sentient in their own ways. Humans cannot pretend to know the inner-workings of the minds of animals, as much as they would like to, but I believe that animals are at a similar level of consciousness as human beings. It just presents itself in a different manner. So, it is morally permissible to kill animals for food as long as they are treated as ends in themselves, not just a means.
Nature would not argue that you shouldn't use the resources of this planet to survive. Should we exploit those resources? No. Should we treat those resources as mere means? No. Should we revere those resources and treat them as ends in themselves? Yes. Emphatically yes. Nature urges us to treat all life with respect, even when we are destroying it.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Are we just consumers? Or are we citizens?
What's a human being's life worth to you? A million dollars? Two millions dollars? Can you put a price on life?
Some people have tried. The attorney general selected Kenneth Feinberg to run the federal fund set up to compensate the families of those killed or physically injured in the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- a task that definitely requires determining the value of a human life in dollars. But is your iPhone worth someone's life?
Apple seems to think so. Or maybe it was Steve Jobs. In the last year, four of the company's workers in China have been killed due to preventable and foreseeable causes. That's not including the ones who committed suicide.
To me, no phone or computer or iPod is worth someone's life -- no matter how cool it is. Just imagine that that Chinese worker was your mom or your sister or your uncle. You'd send that iPhone back if that were the case.
Apple has an obligation to its customers, and it's much bigger than just selling them really cool but really overpriced electronic devices. It has an obligation to its customers' values. Those horrible factory conditions would never fly here in the good ole U.S. of A. We wouldn't stand for it. So why does Apple think it's okay to do that on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?
Apple's obligation right now seems to be to pad its pocketbook at whatever cost. But it should think twice and think hard about how the company can remedy that image. Because until then, I'm not buying a thing from Apple, and you shouldn't either. Let's show them that we're not consumers -- we're citizens. We're citizens of a free, democratic country in which people can live and work and pursue their own ideas of happiness without repercussions or unnecessary suffering.
At least, that's what I thought it was.
Some people have tried. The attorney general selected Kenneth Feinberg to run the federal fund set up to compensate the families of those killed or physically injured in the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- a task that definitely requires determining the value of a human life in dollars. But is your iPhone worth someone's life?
Apple seems to think so. Or maybe it was Steve Jobs. In the last year, four of the company's workers in China have been killed due to preventable and foreseeable causes. That's not including the ones who committed suicide.
To me, no phone or computer or iPod is worth someone's life -- no matter how cool it is. Just imagine that that Chinese worker was your mom or your sister or your uncle. You'd send that iPhone back if that were the case.
Apple has an obligation to its customers, and it's much bigger than just selling them really cool but really overpriced electronic devices. It has an obligation to its customers' values. Those horrible factory conditions would never fly here in the good ole U.S. of A. We wouldn't stand for it. So why does Apple think it's okay to do that on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?
Apple's obligation right now seems to be to pad its pocketbook at whatever cost. But it should think twice and think hard about how the company can remedy that image. Because until then, I'm not buying a thing from Apple, and you shouldn't either. Let's show them that we're not consumers -- we're citizens. We're citizens of a free, democratic country in which people can live and work and pursue their own ideas of happiness without repercussions or unnecessary suffering.
At least, that's what I thought it was.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Kony kids
There has been a lot of talk over the past week about Joseph Kony, Invisible Children and what exactly we should do about the situation. The Kony 2012 video released by Invisible Children last week spurred much of the discussion and bouts of activism, but many were skeptical of the nonprofit organization's methods. Some said that Invisible Children manipulated the facts to sway their almost entirely American audience. But I think there is a bigger question here.
What about our children?
Nearly 300,000 children in the United States were at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes in 2009, according to a University of Pennsylvania study, "most of them runaways or thrown-aways," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Then if you factor in homeless children and foster children who are not being taken care of properly, and you have an epidemic on your hands. The truth is that children are vulnerable, and evil people take advantage of the vulnerable in order to further their own agendas. And sadly, that is nothing new. Joseph Kony has been terrorizing villagers of central Africa for nearly 20 years. So what's all the hype about right now?
There are plenty of children in America that need our help, but no one has made a YouTube video calling attention to their plight (well, not yet anyway). What will it take for Americans to fix their own problems?
What about our children?
Nearly 300,000 children in the United States were at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial purposes in 2009, according to a University of Pennsylvania study, "most of them runaways or thrown-aways," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Then if you factor in homeless children and foster children who are not being taken care of properly, and you have an epidemic on your hands. The truth is that children are vulnerable, and evil people take advantage of the vulnerable in order to further their own agendas. And sadly, that is nothing new. Joseph Kony has been terrorizing villagers of central Africa for nearly 20 years. So what's all the hype about right now?
There are plenty of children in America that need our help, but no one has made a YouTube video calling attention to their plight (well, not yet anyway). What will it take for Americans to fix their own problems?
Behind the veil
It's always something.
Every week if not every day, there is another story out about the Republican party's opposition to improved legislation for women. Today, the conservatives in congress are trying to fight the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 legislation that was largely bipartisan once upon a time. And now Republicans are claiming that the bill is too broad and unnecessarily expands immigration. It seems like they would oppose just about anything that remotely promotes women's rights for any reason at all.
But if those members of congress would just take a moment and step behind the veil of ignorance before they consider whether they should support this legislation or any other, they would realize why it is so important to have such laws in place. If they knew that they could be that battered Mexican (but illegal) immigrant who was taken advantage of by the people who helped her into this country, and she was only trying to escape situations such as these anyway when she came here, then they would not hesitate to pass this bill because it is not strict enough for their tastes. They would stamp that sucker faster than you could say "feminism."
The Republicans have every right to their opinions and to voice them vociferously so. But they should stop and think about why they really have a problem with legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, and they should ask themselves what they would want if they were the women who were being beaten and abused by the men in their lives. Compromise is possible and necessary, but it takes cooperation on both sides.
Every week if not every day, there is another story out about the Republican party's opposition to improved legislation for women. Today, the conservatives in congress are trying to fight the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 legislation that was largely bipartisan once upon a time. And now Republicans are claiming that the bill is too broad and unnecessarily expands immigration. It seems like they would oppose just about anything that remotely promotes women's rights for any reason at all.
But if those members of congress would just take a moment and step behind the veil of ignorance before they consider whether they should support this legislation or any other, they would realize why it is so important to have such laws in place. If they knew that they could be that battered Mexican (but illegal) immigrant who was taken advantage of by the people who helped her into this country, and she was only trying to escape situations such as these anyway when she came here, then they would not hesitate to pass this bill because it is not strict enough for their tastes. They would stamp that sucker faster than you could say "feminism."
The Republicans have every right to their opinions and to voice them vociferously so. But they should stop and think about why they really have a problem with legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, and they should ask themselves what they would want if they were the women who were being beaten and abused by the men in their lives. Compromise is possible and necessary, but it takes cooperation on both sides.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Greed is good?
I saw that Michael Douglas graced the front page of the Wall Street Journal one day this past week. The WSJ placed a picture of Douglas' character from "Wall Street," Gordon Gekko, side by side with a recent picture of the actor. Under the picture in the cutline, Douglas advises those aware of insider trading to report it to the FBI -- part of a public service announcement targeting financial fraud. Apparently, greed ain't so great.
Bank CEOs in the United States would probably object to that statement. Reuters reported: "The United States is home to four of the nine largest banks in the world -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc. It is also home to four of the six most handsomely rewarded bank CEOs." They got it made.
And though this may be quite a leap, I don't think distributive justice really has a place in a capitalist society -- or at least in our society. Think about it: Greed is rewarded. You're only as successful as your latest income statement in many people's eyes. And it's not a result of how hard you work either. If you're born into a poor family and spend your adolescence just trying to make it to tomorrow, you don't really make plans for college or concentrate on maintaining good credit -- two things pretty necessary for a "successful" life. When you get to adulthood and have to find a place to live and a job and health insurance, you're shit out of luck. And no one holds out a hand to help you. You're just condemned and dismissed because you simply did not work hard enough. Where is the justice in that?
From Reuters: "You wouldn't know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world's largest bank. Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That's less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co."
There's just something wrong with that picture.
Justice is not just about money though. For me, distributive justice means equal opportunity for all. Equal access to education and welfare assistance and health care would go a long way to creating a more egalitarian society. Maybe we could take some of Dimon's salary and give it to all of the homeless veterans I see wandering the streets of Fort Worth with their hiking packs and their dogs and their eyes that have seen too much. Maybe that would balance things out a bit.
Bank CEOs in the United States would probably object to that statement. Reuters reported: "The United States is home to four of the nine largest banks in the world -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc. It is also home to four of the six most handsomely rewarded bank CEOs." They got it made.
And though this may be quite a leap, I don't think distributive justice really has a place in a capitalist society -- or at least in our society. Think about it: Greed is rewarded. You're only as successful as your latest income statement in many people's eyes. And it's not a result of how hard you work either. If you're born into a poor family and spend your adolescence just trying to make it to tomorrow, you don't really make plans for college or concentrate on maintaining good credit -- two things pretty necessary for a "successful" life. When you get to adulthood and have to find a place to live and a job and health insurance, you're shit out of luck. And no one holds out a hand to help you. You're just condemned and dismissed because you simply did not work hard enough. Where is the justice in that?
From Reuters: "You wouldn't know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world's largest bank. Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That's less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world's fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co."
There's just something wrong with that picture.
Justice is not just about money though. For me, distributive justice means equal opportunity for all. Equal access to education and welfare assistance and health care would go a long way to creating a more egalitarian society. Maybe we could take some of Dimon's salary and give it to all of the homeless veterans I see wandering the streets of Fort Worth with their hiking packs and their dogs and their eyes that have seen too much. Maybe that would balance things out a bit.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Drugs, mugs and the press bug
TCU is starting to look a little like Penn State with that egg on its face.
Of course, the chancellor and other university officials did a much cleaner job of handling the news of students' drug-dealing crimes than Penn State officials did with the child abuse accusations. But I think what we really have to ask ourselves is: Why?
Yes, I'm glad they did not attempt to cover this up. I'm glad they released well-rehearsed statements, and I'm glad they spoke with the media. But I am confused why this on-campus incident got more attention than student suicides and sexual assaults in the past. The drug dealing that was done was relatively small and inconsequential. It was a victimless situation.
Why is this case so important? Is it because four football players were involved? Is it because many members of the football team supposedly failed their surprise drug tests on Feb. 1? Does this really all boil down to sports? Again?
I guess all I have are questions. I mean, a prayer vigil? Really? For a drug bust? Where was the dang prayer vigil for Mackenzie Workman who committed suicide last month?
I don't know, but I'm sure the answers are just as depressingly simple and mundane as the questions themselves.
Of course, the chancellor and other university officials did a much cleaner job of handling the news of students' drug-dealing crimes than Penn State officials did with the child abuse accusations. But I think what we really have to ask ourselves is: Why?
Yes, I'm glad they did not attempt to cover this up. I'm glad they released well-rehearsed statements, and I'm glad they spoke with the media. But I am confused why this on-campus incident got more attention than student suicides and sexual assaults in the past. The drug dealing that was done was relatively small and inconsequential. It was a victimless situation.
Why is this case so important? Is it because four football players were involved? Is it because many members of the football team supposedly failed their surprise drug tests on Feb. 1? Does this really all boil down to sports? Again?
I guess all I have are questions. I mean, a prayer vigil? Really? For a drug bust? Where was the dang prayer vigil for Mackenzie Workman who committed suicide last month?
I don't know, but I'm sure the answers are just as depressingly simple and mundane as the questions themselves.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
It's about power.
Don't get it mixed: Politics are about power.
The conservatives want to keep it. The liberals want to spread it around, and those in the middle are just trying to make it to tomorrow. They just want to get their kids to school and dinner on the table. Some of them want to go to college. Some of them want to work, and some of them don't. But we all want to be free.
And it just seems to me that some people want to keep all of the power to themselves -- that they want to secure every freedom for themselves, even if it means snatching it away from someone else, someone less fortunate. That is what the Republicans are attempting to do by stigmatizing Planned Parenthood, abortion, contraception and women's health in general. Why else would anyone not think that everyone has a right to his or her own body?
I read an article on the Mother Jones website about a woman who sought out an abortion before Roe v. Wade, and her story was horrible. It was almost unbearable to read because things could easily be that bad again if the Republican party gets its way -- if it really ruins the good work that places like Planned Parenthood accomplish. And with organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation taking sides in a fight fraught with hostile contenders, it feels quite possible that things will not be good anytime soon.
Not with battles over who should have access to contraception raging right now. Not with laws requiring doctors to force a woman to hear a baby's heartbeat before receiving an abortion. Not with people taking sides on an issue that should be important to everyone, regardless of your sex or class or political party. Everyone has a right to his or her body. That's the only power we really have.
And on that note, some lyrics from one of my favorite musicians Ani DiFranco:
wouldn’t it be nice if we had an amendment
to give civil rights to women
to once and for all just really lay it down
from the point of view of women
i know what you’re thinking
that’s just redundant
chicks got it good now
they can almost be president
but it’s worker against worker
time and time again
cuz the rich use certain issues as a tool
and when i say we need the ERA
it ain’t cuz i’m a fool
it’s cuz without it
nobody can get away with anything cool
and you don’t have to go far
like just over to canada
to feel a heightened sense of live and let live
what is it about americans
like so many pit bulls
trained to attack and to never give
we gotta put down abortion
put it down in the books for good
as central to the civil rights of women
make diversity legal
make it finally understood
through the civil rights of women
and if you don’t like abortion
don’t have an abortion!
and teach your children
how they can avoid them
but don’t treat all women
like they are your children
compassion has many faces, many names
and if men can kill
and be decorated instead of blamed
then a woman called upon to mother
can choose to refrain
contrary to eons of old-time religion
your body is your only true dominion
nature is not here to serve you
(or at any cost to preserve you)
that’s just some preacher man’s
old-time opinion
life is sacred
life is also profane
a woman’s life must be hers to name
let an amendment put this brutal game to rest
trust
women will still take you to their breast
trust
women will always do their best
trust
our differences make us stronger not less
-"Amendment" by Ani D. (2012)
The conservatives want to keep it. The liberals want to spread it around, and those in the middle are just trying to make it to tomorrow. They just want to get their kids to school and dinner on the table. Some of them want to go to college. Some of them want to work, and some of them don't. But we all want to be free.
And it just seems to me that some people want to keep all of the power to themselves -- that they want to secure every freedom for themselves, even if it means snatching it away from someone else, someone less fortunate. That is what the Republicans are attempting to do by stigmatizing Planned Parenthood, abortion, contraception and women's health in general. Why else would anyone not think that everyone has a right to his or her own body?
I read an article on the Mother Jones website about a woman who sought out an abortion before Roe v. Wade, and her story was horrible. It was almost unbearable to read because things could easily be that bad again if the Republican party gets its way -- if it really ruins the good work that places like Planned Parenthood accomplish. And with organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation taking sides in a fight fraught with hostile contenders, it feels quite possible that things will not be good anytime soon.
Not with battles over who should have access to contraception raging right now. Not with laws requiring doctors to force a woman to hear a baby's heartbeat before receiving an abortion. Not with people taking sides on an issue that should be important to everyone, regardless of your sex or class or political party. Everyone has a right to his or her body. That's the only power we really have.
And on that note, some lyrics from one of my favorite musicians Ani DiFranco:
wouldn’t it be nice if we had an amendment
to give civil rights to women
to once and for all just really lay it down
from the point of view of women
i know what you’re thinking
that’s just redundant
chicks got it good now
they can almost be president
but it’s worker against worker
time and time again
cuz the rich use certain issues as a tool
and when i say we need the ERA
it ain’t cuz i’m a fool
it’s cuz without it
nobody can get away with anything cool
and you don’t have to go far
like just over to canada
to feel a heightened sense of live and let live
what is it about americans
like so many pit bulls
trained to attack and to never give
we gotta put down abortion
put it down in the books for good
as central to the civil rights of women
make diversity legal
make it finally understood
through the civil rights of women
and if you don’t like abortion
don’t have an abortion!
and teach your children
how they can avoid them
but don’t treat all women
like they are your children
compassion has many faces, many names
and if men can kill
and be decorated instead of blamed
then a woman called upon to mother
can choose to refrain
contrary to eons of old-time religion
your body is your only true dominion
nature is not here to serve you
(or at any cost to preserve you)
that’s just some preacher man’s
old-time opinion
life is sacred
life is also profane
a woman’s life must be hers to name
let an amendment put this brutal game to rest
trust
women will still take you to their breast
trust
women will always do their best
trust
our differences make us stronger not less
-"Amendment" by Ani D. (2012)
Thursday, February 2, 2012
let's talk about sex, baby.
That's right. It's time to talk about sex. Or contraception, rather.
I read an article in The New York Times on Monday that discussed one of the important implications of the new health care law: contraception. The new law requires insurance plans to cover birth control without co-payments for employees. Some institutions are opposed to such policy because of their religious beliefs, including houses of worship, but the Obama administration ruled this month that there would be an exception for religious employers. However, the article said, "a religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do." Many Catholic colleges strongly oppose this ruling and are resisting it, outraged that a policy would force them to go against their beliefs and "finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."
Now, I'm no Catholic. I'm not even remotely religious. So, it's kind of hard for me to understand why members of an organized religion would feel the need to regulate their employees' access to contraception. Yes, it may not adhere to good Catholic rules, but the choice to abide by such rules is a personal one. It must be left to the individual to decide if she or he wants to abide by Catholic teachings (or any other religion).
If these bishops and nuns, politicians and pundits would just take a step back and think about the people -- the women -- that this ruling affects and imagine what it would be like to be someone else for a change, then they just might understand how important it is that this law is implemented and enforced. That's the idea behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" in his theory of justice as fairness. People would not make judgments based on their standing in society because they would be behind the "veil" and ignorant of all "knowledge of particular facts about themselves, about one another, and even about their society and its history," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They would not know their social status or class position. They would not know how much money they have or how intelligent they are. They would not know their age or gender. Rawls says that they would not even be aware of "their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
Those who oppose the contraception coverage requirement or any other part of the new health care law would think thrice if they stood behind a veil of ignorance. They might make different decisions if they did not know their age or sex or social status. They might want every woman to have access to birth control because they just might be that woman who needs it. They might want socialized medicine because they may be that homeless person who has hit hard luck upon hard luck.
Who knows? We might all make different, better and more compassionate choices if we did not have that cushion of whatever it may be -- white, wealthy, male, American, Christian, attractive, etc. Because we could all very well be someone else.
I read an article in The New York Times on Monday that discussed one of the important implications of the new health care law: contraception. The new law requires insurance plans to cover birth control without co-payments for employees. Some institutions are opposed to such policy because of their religious beliefs, including houses of worship, but the Obama administration ruled this month that there would be an exception for religious employers. However, the article said, "a religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do." Many Catholic colleges strongly oppose this ruling and are resisting it, outraged that a policy would force them to go against their beliefs and "finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings."
Now, I'm no Catholic. I'm not even remotely religious. So, it's kind of hard for me to understand why members of an organized religion would feel the need to regulate their employees' access to contraception. Yes, it may not adhere to good Catholic rules, but the choice to abide by such rules is a personal one. It must be left to the individual to decide if she or he wants to abide by Catholic teachings (or any other religion).
If these bishops and nuns, politicians and pundits would just take a step back and think about the people -- the women -- that this ruling affects and imagine what it would be like to be someone else for a change, then they just might understand how important it is that this law is implemented and enforced. That's the idea behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" in his theory of justice as fairness. People would not make judgments based on their standing in society because they would be behind the "veil" and ignorant of all "knowledge of particular facts about themselves, about one another, and even about their society and its history," according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They would not know their social status or class position. They would not know how much money they have or how intelligent they are. They would not know their age or gender. Rawls says that they would not even be aware of "their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
Those who oppose the contraception coverage requirement or any other part of the new health care law would think thrice if they stood behind a veil of ignorance. They might make different decisions if they did not know their age or sex or social status. They might want every woman to have access to birth control because they just might be that woman who needs it. They might want socialized medicine because they may be that homeless person who has hit hard luck upon hard luck.
Who knows? We might all make different, better and more compassionate choices if we did not have that cushion of whatever it may be -- white, wealthy, male, American, Christian, attractive, etc. Because we could all very well be someone else.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A screen within a screen
After reading Part III of Hamlet's Blackberry, I took a moment to consider how connected I am, and I have to say, I think I'm getting pretty good at this whole balance thing.
Sure, I have a smart phone -- an iPhone -- and I frequently text and email and log onto Facebook throughout the day. But as soon as I get home, I like to unwind and forget about those digital ties. I like to forget about my responsibilities. I don't know how healthy that is, but it stops me from stressing out about every little thing I have to do. When I'm with my roommate and our friends, I don't need my phone because these are the people I would be communicating with anyway. I feel like our interactions are fairly organic because they primarily consist of listening to music, grabbing a bite to eat and talking about whatever may be on our minds.
I feel like my generation is probably the last one to experience a time that was not totally dominated by technology. My childhood was vastly different from what my nine-year-old sister's is like today. Yes, my family had a computer, but it wasn't something sophisticated, and I'm not sure what we ever used it for anyway. I remember playing around with the word processor, fascinated by the letters that appeared and disappeared from the screen. I remember playing outside for hours with the neighborhood kids more though. Sometimes, my sister will venture outside to play with the neighbors, but more often than not I find her engrossed in a YouTube video or SpongeBob game. And I wonder how that will affect her in the future.
Sure, I have a smart phone -- an iPhone -- and I frequently text and email and log onto Facebook throughout the day. But as soon as I get home, I like to unwind and forget about those digital ties. I like to forget about my responsibilities. I don't know how healthy that is, but it stops me from stressing out about every little thing I have to do. When I'm with my roommate and our friends, I don't need my phone because these are the people I would be communicating with anyway. I feel like our interactions are fairly organic because they primarily consist of listening to music, grabbing a bite to eat and talking about whatever may be on our minds.
I feel like my generation is probably the last one to experience a time that was not totally dominated by technology. My childhood was vastly different from what my nine-year-old sister's is like today. Yes, my family had a computer, but it wasn't something sophisticated, and I'm not sure what we ever used it for anyway. I remember playing around with the word processor, fascinated by the letters that appeared and disappeared from the screen. I remember playing outside for hours with the neighborhood kids more though. Sometimes, my sister will venture outside to play with the neighbors, but more often than not I find her engrossed in a YouTube video or SpongeBob game. And I wonder how that will affect her in the future.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A product of balance
Lately, I've been hearing a lot about balance. Whether it's in a song or a poem or an idea, the topic of balance has become intricately linked to that of peace and harmony. And that makes sense: Peace is a product of balance. But it's not as easy as it sounds.
I couldn't help but think about balance while reading the article "The Joy of Quiet" by Pico Iyer. That seems to be the idea behind what Pico and his friends are doing when they leave their cellphones at home and escape for days at a time to a secluded, wood area where there is no service, no reception, no Internet connection. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe there is just a fundamental lack of balance on this planet.
Just think about it. If one person can apply the practice of balance to her life and reap the benefits from that, then why wouldn't that work on a global level? Sure, access to all the information I could ever imagine is pretty great stuff. But so is staring up at a sky filled with so many stars that you can't even count them all. And I wouldn't necessarily trade one for the other. I'd just like to learn the art of balance.
I couldn't help but think about balance while reading the article "The Joy of Quiet" by Pico Iyer. That seems to be the idea behind what Pico and his friends are doing when they leave their cellphones at home and escape for days at a time to a secluded, wood area where there is no service, no reception, no Internet connection. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe there is just a fundamental lack of balance on this planet.
Just think about it. If one person can apply the practice of balance to her life and reap the benefits from that, then why wouldn't that work on a global level? Sure, access to all the information I could ever imagine is pretty great stuff. But so is staring up at a sky filled with so many stars that you can't even count them all. And I wouldn't necessarily trade one for the other. I'd just like to learn the art of balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)