Bruce's Philosophers Song

Find Your Favorite Fallacy

I suck at logic. I realize that logic is the cornerstone of philosophy, but I'm really bad at it. Really bad. Funny thing is I don't feel all that bad about it. A few days ago, I looked at a sample problem from one of my old logic texts, and I didn't even know how to begin to solve the derivation. It felt wonderful. This fact, however, doesn't stop me from being interested in fallacies and when one's logic and reasoning goes dreadfully, horribly wrong. A fallacy, plainly put, is an error in one's reasoning. There are many reasons why one's reasoning goes awry, including errors in deduction, ambiguity, irrelevant data, vagueness, etc... The funny thing about fallacious arguments is that they always sound so good, so reasonable -- but they're always wrong. The thing about fallacies that irks so many philosophers is that the sweet sounds of a horribly reasoned argument always sound so good that people are all-too-often swayed by bad arguments rather than by a logically sound argument. The reason is, I think, has to do with the fact that straight logic is boring. It's hard, and it sucks, and not everyone can do it. Fallacies are fun. More importantly, everyone can do it. Unfortunately for fans of logic, fallacious arguments are far too common in the public sphere. A particular breeding ground for fallacious thinking is conspiracy theories. Here are a few of my favorites: I used to take a lot of this 9/11 stuff seriously (I still think a proper investigation is needed) until I heard professional famous people Heidi and Spencer Pratt (collectively known as "Speidi") on a radio show chanting for the downfall of the New World Order. Now, I'm not saying that they can't express their opinions, they are American citizens and well within their rights to express whatever nutty (or perfectly sane) ideas that they want. But really, listening to these two people who, so far as I'm aware of, have no discernable reason to be famous, ended my taking 9/11 truthers seriously right at that moment. Hearing those two was like seeing your grandmother naked. Once you've seen it all the magic of nana is gone. What I was thinking, while listening to "Speidi" was that I was hearing a fallacy at work. The fallacy was this: ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM. It wasn't that we're supposed to believe that the GOVERNMENT pulled off a false flag operation against its own people because a legitimate source laid out compelling arguments for believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Nope. The argument laid out on this show was nothing more than a celebrity endorsement. "Speidi" might have a level of expertise when dealing with the ins and outs of show business, but their authority to speak on matters concerning politics and the inner working of the Tri-Lateral Commission might be lacking. They were speaking outside of their area of authority, yet made an appeal for something they lacked the authority to speak (about). That's what argumentum ad verecundium is. The funny thing about conspiracies is that they're usually not limited to just one form of bad argument. Most are a cornucopia of bad reasoning and awful arguments. Sure, it's great that Fear Factor host Joe Rogan knows that the GOVERNMENT attacked itself for the purposes of interning all Americans into FEMA camps, and that I should trust what he says, because he knows that everything we've been told about the Illuminati is true, but there's a more important reason why I should believe what he says-- if I don't I will die. This fallacy is ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM. This particular kind of bad argument says, if you don't believe my argument, bad things will happen to you. If I continue to be one of the sheeple and refuse to believe that the Globalists have a plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population, I will end up pumped full of contaminated water, high fructose corn syrup, aspertame, flouride, and contaminated vaccines that will render me doscile and compliant (it also doesn't hurt to buy a copy of Loose Change). Speaking of high fructose corn syrup and vaccines being used to create passivity, apathy, and global pandemics, I come to my favorite fallacy and a conspiracy favorite: POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. Translated, post hoc, ergo propter hoc means "after this, therefore because of this". The reasoning goes, because A preceeds B, A caused B. Here's an example: I consumed three Hostess Snowalls right before slaughtering my family. Therefore, the Snowballs caused me to kill my family. Well, as you can see, that's wrong. The fact that I ate a snack just before committing murder doesn't necessarily mean that the two events are connected, despite the close proximity of the two events. Here's another common one, my child is a genius. I played Mozart while I was pregnant. Therefore, Mozart made my baby a genius. The fact is, is that even though it sounds nice to say that playing classical music to fetuses sounds nice (should be an indicator here), there is no causal connection between a child's IQ and what kind of music is played while its mother is pregnant. At best, the realationship is correlational. I know that the last paragraph might have upset a few people, especially those who believe that there is a causal relation between certain substances (like vaccines) and decreased health. I'm not saying that people who believe that substances like MSG are bad for your health are wrong. There might be a connection between environmental toxins and lower IQs and other ailments. What I'm saying is that the arguments that are used by proponents of conspiracy theories are often problematic because so many are so poorly argued. Of course, someone who thinks as I do might end up on the recieving end of another fallacy: ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. The tactic of this fallacious argument is tried and true, and unfortunately it has a stunning level of success. Argumentum ad hominem is simply making the other guy look bad. This one you hear on both sides of the conspiracy issue; proponents and naysayers alike. It's making your argument look good by making the other guy's argument look bad. Conspiracy theorists call non-believers "sheeple" and shills for the New World Order. Conspiracy theorists are "nuts" and paranoids who listen to Art Bell while wearing their tin-foil hats. What I mean by writing this isn't to pick on conspiracy theorists. There are many legitimate reasons to believe that things are not always as they seem to be, and there should be at least a few people who are looking out to see if our government remains the free and open institution that it was designed to be. It's good to ask questions and look for answers -- that's the essence of philosophy. In his search for truth, Socrates questioned his interlocutors, forcing them to ask questions through dialogue. They rarely arrived at answers -- just more questions. Some people don't really like the idea of not having answers, so they look for answers, even when the connections they draw between events aren't reasonable or when there is no good reason to believe a particular line of reasoning. Then again, if everybody specialized in logically correct arguments, late night radio would be so uninteresting.

Smoke if you got 'em: An argument for the acceptance of the use of marijuana for recreational and medicinal puropses

Lots of talk about smokin weed, lately. There's still this idea that some people, here in California have that, any day now, not only the legislature, but the federal government will legalize marijuana and every Californian will be legally able to enjoy the loco weed to his heart's content. But until then, it's perfectly illegal to smoke marijuana. but until then... You know, like Oprah Winfrey, whom I believe does not smoke dope, I can declare that I know things for sure. * I know that I should floss may teeth at least once a day. * I know that time travel is not (currently) possible. Sorry Coast to Coast fans. * I know that eating oleander leaves is not good for me. and I know this one thing absolutely for sure, I know to never, never get involved in a conversation with a person who is really into smoking weed. Conversations with weed smokers are generally about as productive as actually eating a sandwich garnished with oleander leaves. They go nowhere and only end up giving you a stomach ache. I have learned, from many conversations with users of The Cannabis, that you can smoke weed, or eat it, or make paper out of it, or make clothes out of it, or use it for backaches, headaches, relief from the nausea associated with chemotherapy. You can use hemp (also illegal) to make hemp oil, or rope, blah, blah, blah. I've learned that the first president of the United States, George Washington, grew it on Mt. Vernon, and that Matthew Mc Conaughey, Alanis Morrissette, Natalie Portman, Woody Harrelson, Lady Gaga, and just about everyone else in show business smokes it. Marijuana has played a significant role in comedy -- there's not a comic or comedic actor who isn't inspired by weed. I've been told that the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper, and that international traveler, Rick Steves, advocates legalizing it. I've learned that, without marijuana, the music of Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and not to mention Reggae would not have ever existed if not for marijuana. Well, maybe so far as reggae goes it would have been good if marijuana wasn't so popular. For the record, I don't smoke weed. Personally I dislike those who do. But I realize that, in the case of human rights, the fact that some thing or someone's personal choices offend me does not mean that that activity should be illegal. There's no real reason why anyone (who is over the age of 18 and preferably employed) shouldn't be able to smoke, wear, or eat marijuana. Furthermore, if I was suffering from a terminal illness (or even one that caused me discomfort) I don't see any reason why I should not be legally allowed to use any substance that offers me relief from pain or suffering. Furthermore, if I've just had a hard day at work and I want to relax in the privacy of my own home, I don't see any reason why I should be legally barred from using a substance that a) works, and b) I can grow in the privacy of my own yard and not cost anyone one dime in health care costs. I know that the arguments against the legalization of marijuana are potent and often well argued. I understand that there are some people who say that their use of marijuana has had negative effects on their lives. I am not dismissing that the use (especially chronic use, no pun intended) of any mind-altering substance, legal or illegal, can be harmful. but, I understand that there are many people who use legal substances, like alcohol and food, to the same or similar effect on their personal lives. From what I have seen, many of the arguments against the legalization of marijuana are moral. And from what i've seen, many of these moral arguments simply are not justified. If this is so, then the continued prohibition of marijuana may be immoral. For starters, American society is based on the concept of liberty, freedom of choice. The freedom of choice suggests that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Freedom of choice is linked to the idea of autonomy -- individuals are rational, moral agents capable of acting according to their own rational interests. Yet, there is a prohibition on individuals acting autonomously in their choice to use a particular substance. This prohibition, on the grounds that certain behavior is harmful or dangerous to the individual, so it cannot be permitted is paternalistic. It denies the individual the capability to do what he believes is best for him, and to deal with the consequence of his own actions. I know that we prohibit drinking and driving because a drunk driver can cause harm or kill others, and such activity should be outlawed because of the potential to harm other people. But, despite the fact that we outlaw drunk driving, being intoxicated is not. An individual is allowed to damage himself with alcohol, so long as he is the legal drinking age. Also, paternalistic laws often don't work. People grow resentful of being told what to do. Backlash against Prohibition during the 1920s gave way to organized crime, which was a greater harm to society as a whole than the consumption of alcohol. There's a funny thing about morality-based laws, morality changes. At one time in this country's history, interracial marriage, homosexuality, and pornography were not only illegal, but were morally unacceptable according to many Americans. We permitted school segregation, child labor, and corporate monopolies, but now these activities are not only illegal but, more importantly, they are considered immoral. Americans, as a whole, are increasingly comfortable with the use of marijuana, not just for medicinal purposes but also for recreational use. Smoking marijuana bears little or no social stigma nor is it associated with a breakdown in one's moral aptitude. Here are some stats for you: * nearly 1/3 of Americans 12 years of age or older have tried marijuana at least once. * over 2 million Americans admit to smoking daily. * nearly 61% oppose prison for non-violent offenders (esp. marijuana) many marijuana users report they use marijuana because it it less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. Here are some more stats: * the US has 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prison population (that's nearly 2 million people) * we spend on average $68 billion on corrections/ year * the federal government spends nearly $4 billion annually on marijuana. * 1/3 of the prison population is incarcerated on non-violent drug offenses. * 47.5% of those arrests are for marijuana-related. * approx. 90% of arrests are for simple marijuana possession. And some about California: * marijuana, it is said, is California's greatest cash crop. * annual revenues from marijuana are estimated at $14 billion/ yr. (this is money that the state itself never sees) * an estimated 10% tax on marijuana would yield $1.4 billion for the state. (it won't close the state deficit, but it would help) * 14 states (including California since 1996), allow marijuana use for medicinal use for conditions such as AIDS, cancer, and glaucoma. Now, there are people who argue that it is wrong to allow people to legally smoke marijuana, but I ask, is it not morally harmful to keep people from using something that is beneficial? Our first obligation, according to most ethical theories (egoism being the exception) and the Bible, is to do good for those who are in need. We are directed to help others, not just by God, but by our own common sense. Legalizing marijuana will help other people. It will help, not just those who need to smoke it for medicinal reasons, but if marijuana is legalized and taxed, revenues will benefit the state economically. If marijuana is legalized, less money will go to state prisons, thus freeing up revenue to be used for state projects such as roads, education, and state welfare programs. Still, there are people who argue that their opposition to marijuana use is not moral, but medical. They argue that marijuana is dangerous to one's health. Marijuana, like it or not, is safer than many OTCs on the market. There is no known lethal dose of marijuana, however, thousands of people were killed or harmed by FDA approved drugs such as Vioxx and Fen-Phen. Unlike cigarettes, science still has not drawn a direct correlation between marijuana use and cancer (one can simply bypass any risk of cancers, such as lung cancer, by consuming marijuana in a way other than smoking, like eating it or using it in tea). Marijuana, despite what was depicted in movies like Reefer Madness, does not cause insanity. Many marijuana users smoke as a form of relaxation, or in the case of those suffering from debilitating illnesses, to participate in the world without pain. In the case of a (supposed) link between marijuana use and mental illness (such as depression), in the case of some of these marijuana users, their marijuana use is a symptom, not the problem. In the case of these individuals, it might do us some good to look at the societal and personal conditions that lead these individuals to self-medicate, or "escape" reality through the use of marijuana. How can we continue to keep marijuana illegal when the continued prohibition of marijuana clearly does more harm than good? The philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that we cannot predetermine that some supposed harm is harmful to society before that "harm" is actually played out in society. That means, how do we know that legalizing marijuana will be harmful to society if we haven't seen how society be like with legalized marijuana? If our moral and legal objections rely on speculation instead of actual evidence, we cannot justifiably make claims to the "fact" that marijuana is harmful and should remain illegal. I'm just sayin'.....

Give Me Furley Or Give Me Death!!!

When I was in my early 20s it was during the mid 90s. Body piercing was the thing to do. I had a friend who wanted to get her brow pierced, so we took a drive all the way down to Venice Beach to some hole in the wall piercing place (why she couldn't get it done where we lived, I don't know) so she could get her brow done.

Now, Venice has a bit of a rep, and that's good. There's nothing worse than waiting around for someone to get a piece of metal rammed through their face and there's nothing else around to look at. Good thing that Venice has a dynamic array of weirdos and freaks year-round. Plus, there's the dudes working out, and there's that big mural of Jim Morrison, which is pretty interesting to look at for about 38 seconds, mostly to wonder why someone chose to paint a picture of Jim Morrison on a wall in the first place. Another thing to do while at Venice is to look for all the locations that appear in the opening credits of Three's Company.

Looking for such exciting locals as the bike path where Jack fell over on his bike while ogling some hot chick enevitably leads to humming, then outright singing the theme to the show. The theme song sounds like the guy singing is drunk.

It's weird.

But it's not just the theme song, the show itself is a total mindf**k. Supposedly, it's based on some Britcom called Man of the House. I've never seen the original show, but if it's a trippy as the American version, I'm glad that I haven't. Ok, the show is about 3 roomates: two chicks, the ultra-babe Chrissy, and the plain but feisty Janet (she has to bebecause she's not as hot. She's like Kate Jackson in Charlie's Angels. Sabrina was the smart one. She's the one who kicked ass because whe wasn't so hot that a guy wouldn't sock her in the face), and the one dude, a chef named Jack. Now, apparently the free love 60s had totally passed their landlord, Mr. Roper, by because he wouldn't allow single opposite-sex people to live in the same unit, even if one of them is the pretty-in-a-plain-way Janet. So, in order to get Mr. Roper to allow Jack to stay, the 3 roomies had to convince Roper that there is ansolutely no possibility that Jack would ever bed either of his roomies premaritally. They tell their landlord that Jack is gay.

Jack isn't.

This is where, as they say, the hijinks ensue, but after watching the pilot episode, it's not so much hijinks as it is let the gay-bashing begin. This show is terrible! I don't mean that it's terrible in the qualitative sense, although there is a reasonable argument to be made that the show is an exercize in crap. But, this show is totally offensive. Mr. Roper's incessant anti-gay remarks (he calls Jack a "fairy" and "tinkerbell") are nearly cringe-inducing. Not to mention there's the total demeaning depiction of women in the show. Chrissy is really nothing more than some guy's whack fantasy -- blond and stupid.

Did you know that there's an episode where you supposedly can see John Ritter's balls?

Really. He's wearing really short shorts and he raises his leg and there they are. I heard that the episode had aired for years before some kid watching the episode on Nick At Nite saw it and told her parents. I don't know how a kid saw it and all those adults that saw it did not.

What I kept thinking while I was watching was how politically incorrect the show is. The show debuted in the 1970s, and watching 70s TV is an exercise in spot-the-stereotype. You can pick virtually any show, and there's bound to be some character who would never make it to air these days. Sometimes, in the case of shows like What's Happening? or Good Times it's the entire show that's offensive. I often hear people lament that back in the 70s you could get away with alot more than you can get away with now. Some people say that movies like Blazing Saddles could never be made in our politically correct climate or that characters like Archie Bunker would never make it to air. That's probably true (it's also not true that the 70s were some magical no-holds-barred era of entertainment, either. you might not see Archie Bunker on TV but I certainly saw Dennis Franz's bare ass in primetime). There's alot of complaining about political correctness. If one spends any sizable amount of time watching Fox News, you'll hear quite a great deal of bitching and moaning about political correctness.

But is TV today more politically correct than TV 3 decades ago? And if it is, does it really matter? What's so wrong with being politically correct?

Political correctness, according to Random House is, " marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology". Ok, that's the formal definition. Others say that political correctness simply means that you cant say anything about anyone that might hurt someone else's feelings (and those people are always hypersensitive about everything). They say that people are forced to be polite at the expense of telling it like it is -- at the expense of telling the truth. Some say that political correctness is a form of obfuscation, especially when we talk about issues like race or one's national origin or legal status. For example, if I want to say something like, "a lot of Mexicans use up social services", I might be accused of being a racist. I might say (then) that that accusation is an example of political correctness. I might say that calling me a "racist" is a way that some people attempt to obfuscate the fact that many illegal individuals of Mexican decent use a great deal of social services. I might say that I'm just telling it like it is, and if what I say offends people, that's too bad. The truth needs to be told no matter who it offends.

That's what I might say.

The idea is, is that being politically correct, some say, is the habit of focusing so much on not offending people that an issue never gets discussed fully. Being politically correct, when you get down to it, is a kind of lie. The truth is often unpleasant or offensive to some individual or group. If we hold back because we're trying not to appear to be racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist, classist, or anthrocentric, we're not being completely honest with each others or perhaps more importantly, we're not being honest with ourselves. All lies are insidious, but self-deception is a particularly damaging lie. When we lie to ourselves we distort how the world truly is. If we don't see the world how it is, we cannot navigate in it successfully. If we fail to see the truth, we are deprived of the Good life (for more on the harmful effects of deception and not living in reality, see Robert Nozick's The Experience Machine).

But some people may argue that the aim of political correctness isn't to deceive people. The aim is not that people are harmed by not calling a gay man "tinkerbell" or by not making blatantly racist comments. The goal of political correctness is being respectful of people and appreciating the fact that any person, no matter their gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, is entitled to respect. It isn't a lie, it's being polite. The old attitude, that it was morally acceptable to call a gay man a "fairy" or that it's ok to act like an Archie Bunker, denies the intrinsic dignity of people. Those who say that they do not like or want to practice political correctness, are, at heart anti-Kantian. Kant wrote that each rational agent is entitled to respect (of his choices and autonomy). Do fail to respect the individual is a violation of his rights.

The point (initially) isn't to impose some sort of Orwellian thought police-esque you-can't-say-that attitude on everyone (especially when we disagree with others) or to stop anyone from saying what they want to say. We are well aware that no matter what is said there's a chance that someone or some group may be offended by what is said. Being "politically correct" is nothing more than a reminder than other people are entitled to the same kind of respect that we would desire for ourselves. That it's just not nice to call a gay man tinkerbell.... unless he shows you his balls.

Then it's perfectly ok.

Some Lies Really Aren't So Terrible: On Socrates' Noble Lie In American Political Thought

"If a prince wants to maintain his rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous" --Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince "Lie often enough and boldly enough, and people will find it difficult not to believe you" -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Unless you're a very strange person, most people would say that they would perfer an honest politician to a dishonest one. We say that we don't like lies or the people who tell them. We tell ourselves that "honesty is a virtue" and believe that it is a sin to spread false witness Our Congress impeached President Clinton, not because he recieved oral sex from a White House intern, but because he lied about it under sworn testimony. We say that people who have no capacity for honesty do not belong in politics and we often sour on elected leaders who are shown to have betrayed the public trust. The Founders advocated a system of open government. Jefferson believed that, if the people are well-informed, they will be able to use their rational judgment to render right decisions concerning how government is run. An open system is essential to securing democracy. But, the seeds of the Enlightenment and the American system are rooted in the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, including Socrates' ideal city in The Republic. Both Socrates and the Founders sought to create a city based on the ultimate Good of the people. In his description of the ideal city, Socrates states that, in the interest of achieving a state of virtuousness (the Good), the loyalty of the people to the city must be secured. A state of loyalty must be created and maintained through the telling of stories or Noble Lies. These stories, Socrates claimed, would (if they are the correct kind of stories) ensure the undying loyalty of the people to the state. Socrates believed that lying has political usefulness. According to Socrates, a philosopher (who is by nature a lover of wisdom) loves Truth. The philosopher knows that, without Truth, man is unable to lead the kind of life that he is supposed to lead, which is, according to the ancients, the life of virtue and intellectual fufilment. Socrates also said that the aim of the state is the achievement of the Good and ultimately of the Happiness of the community as a whole. Like the Founders, Socrates believed that the city should be led by the wise. The goal of the wise ruler (in The Republic, the philosopher-king) is to create a city that promotes the public Good and wards off the threat of anarchy. However, a philosopher is a wise man, and a man who is wise is well aware of the value of a well placed lie. A wise man, unlike the garden-variety liar who may lie about trivial matters, knows how and when to lie. And, who is is lying to. The who is you and me. If the leader's duty is to secure the public Good and to secure the loyalty of the people to the state, he needs to create the want to be loyal to the state. Socrates says the the leader does this by the telling of myths -- what Socrates calls Noble Lies. Noble Lies, Socrates says, are no ordinary lies. Although Noble Lies are like ordinary lies in that Noble Lies are deliberate falsehoods that are told, unlike ordinary lies, Noble Lies are told for a specific purpose. Namely, Noble Lies are told to bind the loyalty of the people to the state. People, Socrates says, are prone to making bad political choices. Common people, according to Socrates, have a lack of knowledge of political affairs and are easily manipulated. People are incapable of making important political decisions without prejudice or impulsiveness. These lies are meant to command the obediance of the ruled. When it comes to matters concerning the obediance of the people, Socrates believed the there was no need to tell the people the exact truth.

Socrates says, "....could we... somehow construe one of those lies that come into being in the case of need ... some noble lie, to persuade, in the best case, even the rulers, but if not them, the rest of the city?" (The Republic, 414 b).

Noble Lies are not pure fabrications, but are tales of the right sort that will most effectively make people feel loyal to the state. Socrates says that the public must be taught the right sort of art, music, gymnastics (physical education), and the right sort of general education. This right sort of education, Socrates says, should be the type that stirs up feelings of patriotism. People, Socrates states, should feel that the state is their mother and should feel stronger emotional ties to their homeland than they should feel towards their biological families, friends, or lovers. But why is this so? Socrates says that there are certain qualities that rulers possess that the average citizen does not possess, namely those who rule possess the right kind of knowledge and wisdom that the average person does not have and cannot comprehend. Our own Founders believed that the best rulers were wise men, and that wise men (when at the head of the state) were likely to pursue the Good and Happiness of the people. Although our system is democratic, it is not without Noble Lies. The American political system is (supposedly) based on the idea of open government. A democracy, if it is to survive, requires a free exchange of ideas. These ideas are what the people act on -- we vote on ideas, we vote for particular candidates based on their ideas. We say that American "values" embody the ideas of fairness, tolerance, liberty, and equality. It is important, then, that these ideas be presented accurately. But, the Founders also held apprehensions about the ability of the people to make rational decisions regarding the state. The American system is based on the idea of citizen participation. Unlike Socrates' ideal city that is ruled by a philosopher-king, the United States is governed by elected representatives who legislate on behalf of the people.

In Federalist 71, Alexander Hamilton writes that government should not be swayed by "every sudden breeze of passion... every transient impulse the people may recieve from the hearts of men". Hamilton continued, when occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.

What Hamilton is saying is that the people are prone to thinking with their hearts more often than they think with their heads, and that a group of people who are not swayed by the same petty passions should lead. Hamilton, like Socrates, calls these people "guardians".

In Federalist 63, Madison writes, ....suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can reagin authority over the public mind?

The Founders and the ancient Greeks liked the idea of the virtuous statesman who rules when the people cannot rule themselves. He has the authority to assume control over the state in the absence of wiser men. Now, Socrates says that the philosopher-king has the duty to tell Noble Lies to the people to secure their loyalty to the state. We would like to believe that our Constitution, which says that power rests in the will of the people, does not allow a ruler to assume control over government. This is not so. The Founders also believed that not only does the executive have the power over government, but that he should, from time to time, lie to the American public to secure obediance and loyalty to the state. In Federalist 70, Hamilton writes that the executive branch of government (the president) possesses certain duties that allow him to do his duties as president. These duties are: decision-making, activity, secrecy and dispatch. The ability for the executive to use decision and secrecy means that he possesses the right to lie to the people if the lie enables him to do his duty as president. If anyone believes that Americans do not tell themselves Noble Lies, here are a few ideas for you: we believe that this is the land of opportunity. We believe that any man, regardless of his station in life, his color, gender, or creed, can succeed and move ahead in society. This is a form of Noble Lie. Although it is true to an extent, we told ourselves this same "you can get it too, if you pick yourself up by your bootstraps" story when our society was not free and equal. It's also worth noting certain patriotism-inducing myths such as George Washington and the cherry tree, Betsy Ross, and Uncle Sam.There is a reason why we call ourselves a "melting pot"-- we're supposed to see ourselves as "Americans" first, and as members of our own families or ethnic/racial group scond (or not at all). But, there are people who will say that lying, especially lies that rob a people of its ability to know what exactly its government is up to, is pernicious and that no good will come of lying to the people, be it noble or not. But, as Socrates observed, it's not the lie that we need be mindful of, it is the intent of the lie and who is telling it. Socrates said that the ultimate goal of Noble Lies is to achieve the ultimate Good. Those who are telling the lies are not just kings but philosophers. Philosophers, Socrates believed, were virtuous men. So, a virtuous man wouldnot fell an inclination towards telling his people lies that are harmful, primarily because harmful lies detract from the common Good. Virtuous men do not tell unvirtuous lies. Lastly, as we've seen with the latest batch of released documents courtesy of WikiLeaks, telling the truth to everyone can have disturbing effects, especially in the realm of international relations. Everyone need not know everything. There are some things that people need not know. A world where all truth is told can be an unpleasant one at best and a dangerous one at the least. Lies are not all the same, and as Socrates argues, some lies are necessary. Lies are not pernicious because of their being lies, they are pernicious on account of their intent and to some degree, on who is telling them. A lie told for the sake of mere deception or to mislead is often wrong or even dangerous. But, a lie told to guide or to comfort, or a lie that is told for the sake of a greater Good can be conducive to achieving the greater Good. And this case, some lies really aren't so terrible.

The Price of Hemlock

I was watching The View this morning. Rebbie Jackson, Michael Jackson's sister was a guest. She talked about her new album and her work for bi-polar awareness, and of course she talked about her brother Michael. After The View went off, the local news at 11 came on. News of Charlie Sheen's hospital visit. I know that, even before hearing the details about what happened, somewhere in the story, the words "porn star" or "stripper" are sure to play a part in the drama. While I was watching, I wondered, why am I so interested in this man's life? Why do I care about about the Conrad Murray trial? If I think the man had anything to do with Michael Jackson's death, it doesn't matter. And my disgust with Charlie Sheen isn't going to do a damn thing to change his behavior. It's really a sad commentary about priorities. I know who these people are; I know about what drugs they take, who they're fooling around with, and occasionally, via a sex tape, their O-face. Not too lng ago, Time magazine issued its list of the "100 most influential people in the world". Alongside Brazillian president "Lula", Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, and Barack Obama was Taylor Swift, Ashton Kutcher, and Lady Gaga. No doubt that Taylor Swift, Ashton Kutcher, and Lady Gaga are famous. And in their fields they may be influential, but are they truly among the 100 most influential people in the world? When we think influence, are we really talking about popularity or are we saying that these people affect life across the globe in an actual quantitative way? Or, if they are influential, could it be that their influence is heading us in the wrong direction? Socrates was condemned to death for urging people to question the established orthodoxy. The Socratic tradition, the pursuit of truth, is embodied in the ideals of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, was the 17th and 18th century political, scientific, and philosophical movement wherein Europe emerged from the dark age of ignorance and superstition. Enlightenment thinkers, such as Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, Rousseau, and early feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft, believed that rationality was the key to progress, and re-evaluated the sciences, education, economics, the laws of nature, ethics, and philosophy to fit their new view of humanity and its relationship to the natural world. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that the motto of the age should be "dare to know". When the Enlightenment hit U.S. shores, the concept of natural rights influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. American statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson believed that a properly informed public will make rational decisions. Ok, what am I getting at? It's this: we make decisions based on the quality of the information that we get. This is especially important in the area of politics, since whoever is chosen to lead affects the lives of the nation. But it's difficult to get the right kind of information if my local news choses to cover Charlie Sheen's hernia than cover something important, like explaining exactly why our economy continues to collapse or informing the local voting public as to who their congressional representatives are and how to reach them. The sad thing is, is that this reality, if you will, isn't new. It's been like this for years. And this fact has led me to ask, have we reched the end of the Enlightenment? Sure, we've got the Internet, I'm using it right now, and the Internet can deliver information at the click of a mouse. But, having lots of information readily available does not necessarily mean that I can say that I have knowledge. And it's not just me... I live in a culture full of people for whom an abundance of information does not lead to knowledge. In fact, one could make the argument that our culture values knowledge less than we value trivial information. The stuff that I as hearing on The View and about Charlie Sheen on the news is information. More to the point, it's trivial. It's the type of information that Chris Hedges says is a part of our "junk culture". Junk culture, according to Chris Hedges, puts its emphasis on celebrity. It is shallow and unconcerned about questioning about life's meaning. Academia, Hedges says, is a target of junk culture as junk culture is an assault on academia. I think that Chris Hedges is right. I remember when Al Gore was running for the presidency against George W. Bush, a frequent criticism of Gore was that he carried himself like a smarty pants. Is being smart and knowing it a bad thing? Is showing other people that you're smart something to be held against you when you run for the presidency? I'm more than aware of the fact that there are people who are fans of Sarah Palin because she's not a high-falutin' Ivy leaguer like Barack Obama. Is this good? I'm certain that if we held Jefferson or Madison to the same standards that we hold now they would have never been elected to the presidency. But here's the thing: The Enlightenment might have undid itself. It just may very well be the case that Enlightenment thinking is much like Karl Mark said of capitalism. That is, the Enlightenment might have within it the seeds of its own destruction. Follow this closely: The Enlightenment emphacized reason. Through the use of one's mind, one can discover truth. Philosophy spawned, among other things, the field of psychology. Psychology asked not what we reason, but how we reason. Freud's psychoanalysis detailed certain fundamantal laws of human behavior, including the influence of subconscious drives on human behavior. The field of public relations (one of the founders of public relations was Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud), using psychoanalysis, demonstrated how behavior can be manipulated by appealing to drives such as fear or sex. Public relations is closely associated with advertising, which is essential to a capitalist economy, which leads to a consumer culture, where product is associated with celebrity, which is by nature, shallow and decidedly un-academic. Altthough there is plenty to lament about the end of the Enlightenment, the end in itself may not be a bad thing. Let us not forget that some of the evils of history were also products of the Enightenment, namely the enslavement of Africans and the birth of eugenics. Let me explain how that works: 1) reason + science --> theory of evolution 2) evolution + reason (theory that some groups of people have better use of than others) --> social Darwinism 3) social Darwinism --> eugenics --> genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. Perhaps what is going on is a paradigm shift, a time when the orthodoxy is challenged and ways of thinking is changed drastically. Maybe what is to come is not so much of a dark period than a dim one. We might be heading towards an era where we start to correct unhealthy thinking, to lose elements of our culture that are destructive or counterproductive. The end of the Enlightenment isn't necessarily an end to intellectualism, as Europe's Dark Ages was an age when the works of the ancient philosophers were unknown to all but a small group of people. We might be in the process of shrugging off our relentless fascination with the self and celebrity that has until now passed for deep examination of the self and knowledge. We're getting rid of the cult of the self that emerged when Enlightenment ideals were distorted. And who wouldn't like to turn on the news and not hear the name Snooki?

Change You Can't Believe In

We're 2 years into the Presidency of Obama. That's cool and all, but I thought that when we elected the nation's FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT that things would be slightly different now. Things are pretty much the same. It's like Bush never left office. I'm not entirely blaming the president. I know that there's a bit to be upset about, and there are still more than a few people who think that he shouldn't be in the office at all -- but my problem, for the record, has more to do with the politics than my problem has to do with the president himself. I have a real bug up my keister when it comes to the political Left. Let's be straight here, I don't have a problem with the run-of-the-mill Joe or Jane liberal; afterall, I still call myself a Liberal. Unapologetically so. My beef, if you will, is with a smaller segment on the Left side of the political spectrum. They tend to call themselves "progressives". I remember hearing Marilyn Manson talking about his experiences on the Ozzfest tour. He said that sometimes dealing with goth and metal fans was worse than dealing with people who weren't into the metal scene. The problem was dogma. If you're on the Ozzfest tour, there's a certain aesthetic that you're supposed to have. The music is supposed to sound like this or that... whatever set of rules had been approved by real metal fans. If you in any way deviate from that set of characteristics, you won't get a warm welcome. Same goes for politics. If you say that your politics are on the Left, out come the referees with their rule books ad scorecards ready to tally your score. They have to see if your politics are in line with the pre-approved philosophy of what a Leftie is supposed to think (like). Since I like to think that I am a Liberal, I fancy the idea that I use my sense of reason to independently arrive at my own point of view. This is the way that I think that most Liberals think. This is the genesis of the problem. See, when you come out to any group of supposed like-minded people, those people tend to get the feeling that they own you. If you're hanging out with fellow Liberals and you don't read Noam Chomsky, or you're not with the save Darfur crowd, or that you're having second thoughts about this whole global warming thing, you're likely signing your own ideological death warrant. You probably won't be invited to the next PDA rally. I've heard many Liberals say that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter have turned Lberal into a 4-letter word, but I say that the Left has done plenty of tarnishing on its own. You don't gain too many fans to your point of view when one of your idols refers to the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks as "mini Eichmanns". It doesn't help you if the perception of your point of view isn't "America first", but "blame America first". Look, I'm not a vegan. I'm pro death penalty. I'm for tighter borders and I'm a capitalist. Sometimes saying these things around my fellow Liberals isn't a good idea. To some, my well-reasoned choices are a sign that I'm not a Liberal, but a neo-con knuckledragger. But I think this is exactly what Marilyn Manson was getting at. You can come up with your own take on what you believe -- you can be as big a fan of Ozzy as anyone else out there, but because you've decided to go your own way you don't belong. Liberals can bitch and moan about how much Conservatives have smeared them but you can't complain when there are more than a few of you who mantain the Americans are nothing more than greedy, fat, uncultured, Walmart-trolling idiots. Portentious fingerwagging does not gain fans. You can't win friends and influence Republicans if the same workers of the world you're urging to unite are the same workers you're saying are fat and stupid and the reason why things have gone wrong in the developing world. I'm not saying that all Liberals are always wrong. Look, I like Thom Hartmann, and Jim Hightower. I listen to Ed Schutz and Stephanie Miller. I think that Dennis Kuchnich and Bernie Sanders are probably the only two members of Congress who are worth a damn. I lamented when Russ Feingold was unelected, but for pete's sakes, you gotta realize that Liberals absolutely do not have to think alike! I hear Lefties say that they're all into tolerance and diversity until your ideas diverge from theirs. I was talking to an Amy Goodman listener some time ago, and I said that I highly suspect that Mumia is in fact guilty of murdering the police officer (for which he was sentenced to death row). You would have thought that I had confessed to personally killing Anne Frank. I tried to explain that I thought that, even if he did do it, the crime did not warrant the death penalty, but the fact that I had insinuated the possibility the Mumia had committed murder was enough to end the conversation right then and there. I understand that to have a particular ideology you have to have some beliefs that adhere to a certain set of principles. But I also understand that I don't have say that I'm into Arundhati Roy or yoga and recycling to prove to someone that I am what I say that I am. Although I am kinda glad that Olbermann left MSNBC.

Baa Baa Baa

This past month has been pretty exciting, eh? Lots of talk about conspiracies.... I was listening to the Alex Jones ahow a couple of days ago, and he was talking about the "V for Victory" campaign. He said that the remedy for 1984 is 1776, which may or may not be true. But what I started thinking about is the whole business of conspiracy theories in general. In conspiracy circles, at least among some of the most eager of adherents, some, during their most vitriolic moments, often refer to the American people as "sheeple". Sheep+people=sheeple. What they mean is that they think that most Americans follow whoever leads them like sheep. Most people are exactly as Nietzsche said, motivated by the "herd mentality". The sentiment is that, after decades of being feed mind-numbing diets of MSG, aspertame, high fructose corn syrup, dumbed-down infotainment, and substandard political "leaders" the American public has been rendered passive, accepting whatever directive GOVERNMENT tells them, led like sheep to slaughter. Because most people are inclined to blindly follow any sweet-talking demagogue, following rather than questioning, many conspiracy theorists tell their cohorts to beware of the herd. It's not just conspiracy theorists who have had this point of view. Socrates and Nietzsche both rattled the cages of conformity. George Orwell wrote of a society led by "groupthink". Right now, I'm hearing The Police song "Synchronicity II" in my head (listen to the 2nd verse). Everybody's got their list of examples of herd mentality triumphing over common sense. If everybody jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you? This is a problem for us because Americans aren't supposed to be conformists. We're supposed to be a nation of self-sufficient, self-determined, self-made, rugged individuals. We're a people who praise the self-made man who, with the sole support of his own bootstraps, pull themselves from the bottom rungs to the highest reaches of success. This is the American story. Of course, there's plenty of philosophy to back this up: Rousseau wrote of the state of nature where man relied on his own smarts and autonomy to provide for himself. In fact, Rousseau wrote that man is by nature so independent, that he only need companionship for the brief duration that it requires to complete the reproductive act. The deal is, is this totally independent man never existed. Nor does he exist now. When you think about it, the idea that man is by nature solitary sounds kind of counter intutitve. It seems that a creature that does not need anyone other than himself would never feel loneliness, but we do. In Sunday school, we're taught that we're our brother's keepers, and that we will be judged by how we treat others. Getting in to Heaven is more of a group effort then we'd like to admit. We tell ourselves that people who spend too much time alone end up nutty. A lot of the talk, besides talk about conspiracy theories, about the unpleasantness in Arizona has been a lot of asking why no one that knew that dude did anything to get that guy help. Might not want to admit it, perhaps for fear of being overtaken by the herd, but humans are herd animals. We call our herds families or society or our culture. We know that conformity is a good thing. If we did not conform, our social bonds would dissolve and we'd end up in the bad kind of anarchy. You know, the kind where only Mel Gibson can help us out anarchy. Americans are a label-loving society. And the fact that we are such conformists makes us all the easier to label. We love keeping up with the Joneses and hate being the odd man out. We say that we love those who march to the beat of a different drummer, but only if that person plays a tune that we like. I don't know if I'm coming up with anything revelatory here, but I noticed that even those who are down on the public at large on their onformity rely heavily on conformity when it comes to their own beliefs. Conspiracy theorists want to be heard. They want to be believed. Dare I say, they want to be followed. That's why they put out videos, have radio shows, and go on TruTV talking about the goings on at Bohemian Grove. I don't know how many people have seen this, but I've had the supreme displeasure of witnessing duelling conspiracy theorists (this one is easy to set up: find one friend that thinks that the WTC was brought down by explosives and one who does not. Sit back and watch the tempers flare and the sparks fly). I think that any conspiracy theorist would have to admit this, but it's not the problem whether people are "sheeple" or not. What the issue is who they choose to follow. It's whether you believe that we're being assaulted by the New World Order or whether you choose to believe that nothing nefarious is afoot. Each side wants conformity to their point of view. To get the people to rise up and overthrow the puppet masters, you need people who will follow -- that's a brute fact. You know, now that I'm thinking about it, there's something else that seems quite odd about the whole 1984/1776 thing... In Orwell's 1984, Big Brother had a slogan, "Freedom is Slavery". And the answer to Big Brother's message is 1776. That's of course, a reference to Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, where he wrote that all men have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". So, the solution is to follow the words of a man who actually owned slaves, right? I mean, 1984 was just a book. But, then, that's a whole other conversation.

Amazing What You'll Find... When You Look

I never thought that I'd be saying that Sarah Palin is right about something, but when former Alaska governor and Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, was asked during an interview which of which of the founders was her favorite one. She answered, "all of them". I don't know if what she said wasn't a bullshit answer (because it's impossible to know exactly what's inside someone's head), or whether it is even possible to like all of the founding fathers, but I'm not exactly on the, "there goes that Palin being stupid again bandwagon". Some took her answer as a sign of her political ignorance; that Sarah palin is one of those way-too-many Americans who have no clue about their country's political institutions, yet feels the need to prattle about them as if they're an expert on all matters foreign and domestic -- the type of people who, when you ask them who their favorite founding father is, answer, "all of them". Like I said, I don't know Palin personally, so I can't speak to the degree of her political ignorance. There are plenty of people who are extremely unaware of what their government does. I'm not even getting anywhere near the more obscure political questions like, "who are the 9 Supreme Court justices?" or, what year was the 16th Amendment passed, and why do some people object to its constitutionality, or, name your representative. Look, I know that there is a great deal about this country that I don't know (and I have a political science degree). And I know that there are plenty of people who think that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution who are more politically active and know the ins and outs of the political process than people who have spent their academic careers studying government. By the way, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Now, because I had to write papers on the subject, I know that the Constitution was inspired not only by the Native American tribes, like the Iroquois, but also tips its hat to the philosophy of pre-Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke. Not to mention, that the American public got its first gander at the Constitution through The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, collectively known as Publius. And of course, Publius "borrowed" its name from one of the founders of the Roman republic, Publius Valerius Publicola. I'd venture that most Americans are unaware of that fact. That's kind of sad, because it's really worth knowing. I can't say for sure that Sarah Palin is one of them, but there are too many Americans who don't know much about their government. There are too few people who are acquainted with American political philosophy and the nation's owner's manual, the Constitution, not even in civics class. I didn't read the Constitution until I reached college. Seriously. I only know what I know now because I got myself a polysci degree ( I mention for the second time. Trust me, I'm not bragging). Given what I've heard from the mouths of people on both sides of the political spectrum, I'd say that there are plenty of other people who got cheated in civics class, just like me. There are people who say, "the Constitution says this" and "the founders said that", and they have no idea what in the hell they're talking about. All you do know is that they're busy paraphrasing some Left or Right-wing talk show host who has no idea what they're talking about. All you hear these days is regurgitated Glenn Beck, Noam Chomsky, Sean Hannity, Alex Jones, or Amy Goodman. It's frightening what people don't know because they've not looked for themselves. There are people who are unaware not just of the basic how-to of the government, but are completely devoid of what the philosophy is behind the founding documents. People might not think that it matters to know that Enlightenment philosophy (partially) influenced the Constitution, but it does matter more than we may think. It's important to know where the ideas come from. It's important to know that our founding fathers thought that a free and just government was the most obvious choice of government, despite what Socrates had to say about democracy. It's important to know that, in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the founders knew that a country cannot function without a strong central government (yes, I said a strong central government). Thomas Jefferson wrote that governments are created to protect the rights of men. Govenrment cannot secure rights if men do not feel secure enough to pursue the higher ends of his nature. Harry Jaffa says that the primary question of the American government was how to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. By the way, it's very fashionable to go about speaking as if a strong government is inherently bad. It is not. Jefferson and the Founders knew that a strong government is necessary to secure the ends of government, namely protecting the right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. To enjoy any of our inalienable rights the people must (first) feel secure. the only way to ensure security is to have a strong centralized government. Of course, the intention isn't that the government be so strong that the rights of the people are trampled over by a tyranical government. The founders were smart enough to provide for countermeasures -- voting, free press, right to assemble, balance of power and judicial oversight, to name a few tricks in the bag, as Publius quotes Montesquieu, "there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates" (Federalist 47). So what does this have to do with Sarah Palin? The thing is, is that not all of the founders thought the same. Jefferson is a darling of the Libertarian set, who claim that the best government is the government that governs least. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton was a fan of the elite who wanted to install Washington as a king. John Adams was a Christian. Benjamin Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, a organization infamously connected to the idea of hedonism as a way of life. They weren't all the same, yet each has influenced how we, as a nation, have developed (for better or for worse) in to the nation we are at this point in our history. When I look back at the contributions of the founders, how each has influenced what we have here right now, it is difficult to pick out just one. There is so much to admire in many of them. Perhaps sarah Palin wasn't so much ignorant as she was taking a broader view. She might have appreciated the contributions of the founders as a whole, rather than nitpicking over which one is better, like ranking which character of Jersey Shore is your favorite or whether you think Brad and Angelina or Brad and Jennifer make a better couple. If this is indeed the case, it might do us all some good to be more like Sarah Palin. ...... it might.

Sucks To Be You

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Matt: 19:24)

"Don't give me that dogoody good bullshit" Pink Floyd, "Money".

Despite my Liberal inclinations and my Leftist fantacies, I am painfully aware of this one thing: THE UNITED STATES IS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY. No, really, I get it. It is. We love money here. And one of the great things about being here is the fact that there are opportunities to make money. Lots of money. Oprah money.

Although I took econ in high school, and I remember something about the objective in our culture is to "make money", I don't remember learning very much beyond that point, nor do I remember learning much about the creator of capitalism, the Scottish economist, Adam Smith.

Honestly, I didn't read Smith until I got to college -- in a philosophy class.

I also know that I am not the only American who has had this experience.

What I had learned in school is that being a capitalist means that, if I made a shitload of money and other people didn't, that the appropriate response to their misfortune is "sucks to be you!". I had plenty of teachers on this kind of capitalism, mind you. I learned from the media that "greed is good", and that if I made a whole lot of money that I could get on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous ( I guess it's getting on something like Real Housewives now). I learned that pursuing one's interests above all is not only the key to success, but the only truly American way to do it.

Funny how sometimes you learn that you didn't know what you thought you knew when you actually read something.

Like the American Founders, Smith was a product of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment emphasized science and reason, which was meant to counter the prevailing belief in stuff like superstition and the diving right of kings -- stuff that told people that wherever they found themselves was their lot in life, and that if you were born poor, you were consigned by God to be poor. The Enlightenment threw all those old ideas out and relpaced them with new ideas like, any one can be as rich as a king (and if you really know how to play the game, even richer). The idea was that man could improve on himself. He could be inventive and that by using the skills of an entrepreneur, he could make himself rich. This sounds ok so far. But here's the deal...

The Enlightenment stressed reason as it's primary motivator. That is, reason was vaulted as paramount among the virtues. So far so good. But, this thinking led to the idea that there are some people who just can't ( for some reason or another) reason like other people. And if this is so, there must be some sort of explanation. This of course led to the idea that some people were naturally inclined to think better, and since thinking was a virtue and virtues are a sign of excellence, people who were better thinkers were not only better thinkers, but better people. This notion got a big help from Darwin's theory of natural selection, which was, by way of the likes of folks like Herbert Spencer, turned from the natural world, to the social world. So, societies that were better thinkers were better societies. Those better societies were superior to other less-thinking societies. So, if you couldn't think, using Darwin's theory (as applied to people) you had inherited a set of bad genes. Not just you, mind you, but your entire culture had done so. And people who are stupid don't succeed, and if you don't succeed, you can't get rich. So, if you're poor, your biology made you poor. You're not "fit" as Spencer would say. This ethic was best expressed by Dicken's Ebeneezer Scrooge. When Scrooge is asked if he will give to charity, he says he is not in the business of making idle people merry and that the poor will have to do with what they have . When Scrooge is told that thre poor will die if they do not get help, he says (rather famously) that they had better get to it and "decrease the surplus population". Scrooge is merely repeating the capitalism-meets-Darwinism vibe of the latter half of the 19th century. He believes that not only are the poor to blame for their condition, but that they are taking up room and worse yet, sponging off of hard working capitalists like himself.

It's by no mistake that we are supposed to be outraged by Scrooge's comment. What he says isn't only cruel, it's not capitalist philosophy, either.

Although Smith wrote that self-interest is the prime motivator for acting in the market, he believed that men would automatically also benefit the whole. Men, Smith believed, had an intuitive sense to work toward the common good. In benefitting ourselves, we also benefit society as a whole. Smith writes that no society can flourish if a part of its people are poor and miserable. Smith writes that with the improvement of the "lower ranks" of society, the entire society is likewise improved. He says that we should not think of tis as troublesome but as an advantage. The pursuit of capital is not a free-for-all, nor should wealth be gained while the greater population suffers. Business, Smith observes, is not to go unregulated. Smith wrote that business should be conducted as if all transactions were conducted under the watch of an "impartial spectator". Smith wrote that the spectator is, in reality, the watchful eye of the individual over his own actions (this is tied to the oft mentioned idea of the "invisible hand". The supposedly invisible market forces that influence the behavior of capitalists and capitalism). However, Smith recognized that actual government regulation of markets is necessary to ensure that business is conducted in a manner that does not harm the greater society. Smith knew that, given the ability to collect large sums of personal wealth, greed can impede one's ability to regulate what one consumes. That is, Smith recognized the fact that rich people tend to be greedy and will consume more than their fair share of resources. We need regulation to " restrain our selfish, and to indulge our benevolent affections...". Smith wrote that we need regulation to make" nearly the same distribution of the necessities of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among its inhabitants". For Smith, unlike what we hear in the popular discourse, being a capitalist didn't mean that we should, or even that we have the right to allow others to fall by the wayside while others clearly make and consume more than they will ever need. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that Smith was nearer to Socialism than he is to the "capitalism" that we practice here in the U.S. I don't think he'd be a fan of any sort of socialistic distribution of wealth scheme. What I think that Smith is saying is that when we value money over other people, we are bound to get into trouble. That trouble, unfortunately, tends to affect more than just the handfull of greedy people who may have thought that they can, or should get more than everyone else. You don't have to watch TV for long to see that unobstructed greed isn't just wrong in some sort of abstract, moral sense. It's wrong in that people die and nations are brought to the brink of collapse when we think of capitalism as a "take what you can when you can" (that's a line from The Secret Of NIHM) way of running markets. Adam Smith wanted us to have the opportunity to get rich, but he wanted us to be cautious about what we may put on the line in our pursuit as well.

I'll end here with another Smith quote,

"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices".

Gee, it's not like that's happened recently.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

When I was a philosophy student, I participated in this shindig called "ethics bowl". What ethics bowl isn't as important than to say that I had a teammate who was an avowed anarchist. Really, he was. I don't think that he was the type that wants to burn down buildings or wants chos and disorder as much as I think that he believed that people were better off governing themselves. I think that he believed, in the long run, governmental power was more pernicious than it is useful. There is a general feeling out there, not just among anarchists, but among Libertarians, Conservatives, even among Liberals and Progressives, that all government is in some way inherently bad. They are guided by the mantra "the government that governs best governs least". As soon as governments gain power, they believe, man loses his freedom. These people are easy to spot. They're the people who spell "government" GOVERNMENT. And a growing number of Americans see GOVERNMENT as a failure. This is not just a Tea Party sentiment. From Rush Limbaugh to the late Howard Zinn, not only are Americans (and their political spokespeople) distrustful of GOVERNMENT, they believe that government is at best incompetent and at worst dangerous. Ronald Reagan famously said, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". And the GOVERNMENT has wasted no time proving Reagan's sentiment. Intelligence failures, the Katrina debacle, runaway deficit spending, crony capitalism, the potential ELE oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the expanding, invasive role into the lives of average Americans has a growing number of people not only agreeing with Reagan's sentiment, but agreeing with Grover Norquist's sentiment of wanting to shrink government to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. The recent primary victory of Tea Party fav, and son of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, in Kentucky is a testiment to the fact that more Americans are thinking of their government as the GOVERNMENT. Maybe the people should be alone to rule themselves. This idea is by no means a new one. As Americans, we are raised with the notion that people are or should be, for the most part, able to care for themselves. This is the way man's nature truly is, some say. Where we go wrong, is that we institute GOVERNMENT, that, given it's nature to take freedom away, busies itself with making otherwise independent creatures wholly subservient and dependent on it. Listen to enough talk radio, and you'll hear how we're supposed to be. It actually sounds a little like Rousseau's depiction of man in the state of nature. According to Rousseau, man, in the state of nature (that is, before civilization), cared for himself. He enjoyed unlimited freedom, and success depended upon his ability or own willingness to do for himself. Man, in his natural state, did not require supervision from an institutional authority. This is about as close to a Garden of Eden as man can get. However, like the fabeled Garden, Rousseau's nature man did not exist. The story is an allegory, an idealized notion of how man should be -- how man is in his heart (as we all feel the longing for total liberty). Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever tries to hang a seiling fan alone has discovered, there are some things that individuals simply cannot do for themselves. We cannot defend our borders as single people (although there are some people who believe this is possible), we need governments to secure our borders for us. A single man cannot fight against an entire nation. Therefore, we need governments to create armies to protect and defend us. We cannot survive alone in a world, where all fight against all, where Hobbes says that life is "nasty, brutish and short". We need protection. We would rather give up some of our freedom in exchange for safety and security. This is why man agrees to be governed. We also know that no matter how much we try to educate some, there are people who simply will not or cannot not make rational decisions. Governments take all suggestions of how to govern and mitigate as to which course of action is the best for the people to take. The Founders were well aware of this fact. Just ask yourself why the franchise was so limited at the Nation's founding? This is why Bentham believed that government should occasionally take an activist role. If the common good can be achieved by government occasionally acting as a GOVERNMENT, then the government should do so. And our government has certainly done so; the Reconstruction amendments following the Civil War, civil rights legislation, Supreme Court decisions reversing segregation, etc. Government should always be at the ready to reverse bad decision making when the people either cannot or will not do it themselves. Of course, the government does not have unlimited power. We may have forgotten this, but our government was created to protect our rights, not to grant them. The Rights of the People are not doled out by men in Washington, but handed to us by our Creator. Our Rights are inalienable (that means we can't even give them away voluntarily). But, like government, our rights are not absolute. We can have them taken from us by way of due process. And we know that our rights end as soon as they infringe on the rights of another person. I cannot execute a person for walking across my property, even if I post a sign that says "No Tresspassing". My rights to have an unmolested lawn do not overide another person's right to life. At their heart, all governments require some degree of coersion to achieve their ends (which is protecting and promoting the common good). I think that this fact is what sets some people off about GOVERNMENT -- it's the fact that they feel compelled to do anything at all. You can feel the spirit of Rousseau's nature man in your heart, but you have to recognize that if you wnat to live in a country of 300,000,000 people, you're going to have to do some things that you don't wan to do, and that you are definitely not always going to get what you want. Great political thinkers: Plato, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, the American Founders, even Reagan, recognized that government is necessary. American Founder (and big GOVERNMENT enthusiast) Alexander Hamilton, said if men were angels that governments wouldn't be necessary. Well, men aren't. Even Reagan said that the aim wasn't to destroy government, but to find a way to make it work. The big question is how do we go about finding a government that protects liberty, serves the common good, promotes justice, and serves the wider group? The plain truth of the matter is that democracy is messy. It's prone to tyranny and bad governance. But, as Winston Churchill observed, as bad as democracy is, it still beats out every other bad form of government. We the people are in charge of this democracy. This is why we cannot fully blame our elected politicians nor can we fully call ourselves blameless when government goes wrong. To run a successful government, it takes lots of responsibility and alot of homework. Our task is not to drown government, but to do as Reagan said and find a way to make it work. So, my advice for anyone who complains about how much they hate GOVERNMENT and how much they's like to see the drowning, simply think of the places where the drowning has already taken place. And then ask yourself, is there some reason why you're not already in Somalia?

A Fate Worse Than God

At the end of the movie American Beauty, a post-murdered Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) tells us, the audience, that he is, despite all appearances, grateful for "every single moment of my stupid, little life". Now, there's a philosophical pinata in this movie, and it's been written about and commented on by professional and layman philosophers aplenty. A common theme that emerges among those who look at American Beauty philosophically (and I assume even those who don't), is the question of the meaning of life. At first glance, Lester's life seems pretty pathetic -- loveless marriage, crap-ass cubicle job (from which he is fired), and a daughter who propositions the neighbor kid to off her dad, not to mention Lester's growing obsession with the best friend of his teenage daughter. We look at Lester and see someone worthless, someone who has let life pass him by, someone who, if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice. Lester's life stank of the quiet desperaton that Thoreau wrote of in Walden. However, even though we know that Lester's life has come to nothing, at the end, he's still grateful for every single moment of his life. So, there are no wasted moments after all. At the end, Lester found meaning in something that seemed so meaningless. But for the rest of us, in the real world, how can we tell that, in the end, we'd be so grateful like Lester? How do we determine that the lives we have are worth living? The 18th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was nice enough to give us a method for solving one of life's most vexing questions: Is my life worth living? Nietzsche's solution? Eternal return. Nietzsche's "eternal return" goes a little something like this: a demon come to you and says "this life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it... every pain and every joy... everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you..." . Nietzsche says if our response is that we "throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus", that our lives are not meaningful. that is, if, at the prospect of having to live your life over again for an eternity, you greet the news as someone would greet a death sentence, you had better rethink how you're living your life, and fast. Because your life sucks. Most of us would say yes to the demon if we had the possibility to change things we had done in our past -- to improve on ourselves, to change things for the better. Most of us wouldn't have a problem if the demon presented us with the situation that wheatherman Phil Connors experienced in the movie Groundhog Day. Phil was stuck living the same day repeatedly, but each time he began a new day, he was able to change his actions. Eventually, Phil discovered that the point of repeating the same day over and over was so that he would change something about himself. At the outset, Phil wasn't a very nice guy. Repeating Groundhog Day allowed Phil to see where he was going wrong. The day became a kind of cosmic mulligan. He did it 'til he got it right. Only when Phil improved himself was he allowed to move on to February 3. But with Nietzsche, there is no release. There is no moving on to the next day. And absolutely no changing things, either. What would we do if we realized that, wnlike Phil, we couldn't change what happened? We would have to live every excruciating detail of our lives forever? I suspect that only after a few times, we would end up alot like Michael Palin in the "Deja Vu" sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus. It doesn't take long before Palin's nerevs are frazzled, knowing that the same thing will happen over and over and over again. (if you haven't seen this sketch, watch it). The idea that is scary is that there aren't enough good times to make the truly awful times bearale for an eternity. For every fantastic birthday or trip to Cancun, there's that time that you were attacked by the neighbor's dog, or the time you spent a week in jail for unpaid traffic tickets. Those times sucked. In Nietzsche's eternal return, the demon gives us a choice. We can decide whether we want to take him up on his offer or not. But what if the afterlife (or whatever lies beyond our plane of existence) is more like what happened to Phil Conners? What if we don't have a choice? What if when our lives end, nature or God automatically pushes the "repeat" button? What if repeating our lives was something that wasn't meant to teach us a lesson about life so much as it becomes a punishment for our lives? There's this movie that came out in the mid-80s called High Spirits. It's reallya forgettable movie, but there's a character who is doomed to live the night of her murder for an eternity. Every night, she and her husband Martin reenact their wedding night. Martin accuses her of cheating (which she wasn't), chases her down and then stabs her. She dies and then the next night it's back to the same thing chase and stab again. By the time the audience sees the unfortunate bride and her husband replay her murder, they've been at it for over a hundred years. (Once again, however, she is released from her eternal bonds by love. She finds the true love of her life, played by Steve Guttenberg. Win some, lose some, eh?). But this poses a very interesting question. Ok, Nietzsche wants us to find meaning in our lives, but what if the real meaning is in our death? There's this idea that meaning has to be cultivated over a lifetime. That, taken as a whole, life either has or hasn't meaning. But why is this so? There are plenty of people who say that their entire point of view about life changed in a single moment. All the meaning of one's life can be crammed into one, singular moment. So why not live that moment for an eternity? That's ok, only if the moment we are living is worth living for an eternity, but what if it's one of those punishment moments? What if, if we are doomed to eternal punishment, we have to live the single worst moment of our lives for an eternity? In the movie Salvage, a young woman is forced (again, for seemingly inexplicable reasons, well at first anyway) to live the day of her murder over and over. As she begins to realize that she's repeating the same day over and over, she attempts to find ways to stop her murder from taking place. But, it seems that no matter what she does, she always ends up at home, where the murderer brutalizes her before murdering her and burying her body in a field. We think, like she does, if she can just figure out what's going on, much like Phil in Groundhog Day, she can break the cycle. But here's the thing. She's not repeating her murder to figure out anything about her life at all. In the grand scheme of things she really doesn't matter at all. It's because it's not about her life, it's about her death. She is a part of someone else's punishment. She's not stuck in her own eternal return, she's struck in her murderer's eternal return. He is being punished for murdering the young woman, her boyfriend, and a bunch of other people. He has to feel her pain, but the only way he can feel her pain is if she feels the pain of being murdered. That made me think, if a person chooses to take the demon up on his offer, exactly whose lives are involved? Is everyone you know doomed to be a part of your eternal repetition? If they are not, are they just facsimilies of the people you know? Is eternal return a group effort or is each person's recurrance solipsistic? (and if that is, how can I be sure that my life isn't now?). If I'm in something like Groundhog Day, and if everyone else wasn't repeating the day as I was, who were those people that I was dealing with? Were they convinvingly realistic looking holograms like the holodeck on Star Trek:TNG? If Igot to know those hologram people, did I really know the people that I thought that I knew once time returned to normal? You know, this may have all been an exercize in overthinking. I should try to just sit back and enjoy what I'm watching instead of analyzing everything for it's "philosophical significance".

I Heard They Play Speed Metal In Hell

It's been 150 years since Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. There is, I hear, a re-release of Darwin's classic, including a brand spankin' new introduction co-written by the star of the switcheroo flick Like Father, Like Son, and Growing Pains, MEGACHRISTIAN Kirk Cameron.

Apparently, Darwin's book is in the public domain, so anyone can write a version of it if they want. Kirk says that he's doing a new intro with the intention of presenting a balanced view of Darwin's work. Apparently a "balanced" view means saying 'this book is bullshit' in an introduction.

Ok, so he wouldn't say "bullshit".

When I was a bit younger and a church-goin' person, I fell victim to just about the worst thing that could happen to a God-fearin' fella. I was sitting in church one sunday morning, thumbing through my Bible (I think the sermon had to do with something in Luke), when I experienced only what I can call a "reverse revelation".

It was at that moment when I suddenly stopped believing in God.

I can't explain it any other way than to say that it was sudden, like a bolt of lightening from the heavens. Really, at that moment I felt like it must have felt for Saul on the road to Damascus, except for the fact that I was suddenly an atheist. Sitting in church, no less.

I didn't feel too bad about it, though. While I was sitting there (beacuse it would have been rude to just get up and leave during a sermon), things became clearer and I finally understood. The heavy load of doubt had been lifted. I no longer felt the gulit of wrestling with my doubt because it had been revealed to me that the thing that I doubted did not exist. It was like God did me a little favor in whispering in my ear, "I'm going to tell you something, but don't tell anyone else here. I don't exist".

I thought that I should have been feeling something about not believing... guilt, worry, a sense that I was doomed to hell... nope. Nothing. I didn't feel bad about it at all. That morning while I was sitting there, receiving the most amazing news that I could have ever received in my life was the most singular moment of clarity that I had ever felt the entire time that I had even gone to church. All these years later, I still feel the same.

When it first happened, I thought that the problem might have been the church that I was going to. But each time I went to another one, the feeling was the same. I had even tried dabbling into "alternative" religious practices (yes, including Wicca, and no, it had nothing to do with that movie The Craft. But given my size and gender, Wicca would seem a natural choice). As if I were hit by the backhand of God, God said to me, "why are you insisting on doing this to yourself? I don't exist!!" I finally had to admit to myself what I already knew.

I was an atheist.

The funny thing is, is when you make the discovery of your non-believingness, none but the most millitant atheist wants to admit that that's what they are. Many of us cling to the badge "agnostic", believing that it's better to "keep our options open", than to say that we flat-out don't believe that there is a God. It's better to say that one is non-practicing than to say that one is non-believing. Eventually, however, the charade catches up with us when we realize that we aren't aganostic at all, that it's not a matter of not believing that no major religion has got it on what God is, but a matter of the fact that we believe that there is no omnicompetent being that occupies any role in the galaxy (I decided to use a definite description instead of saying that "God does not exist" for some positivist-leaning butthead saying that I've made a negative existential claim, which is something that I cannot do). Still, after many years I hadn't given up the hope of eventually believing in something. The idea of having no belief seemed like being lost, or worse yet, it smacked of disingenuity. The accusation towards many atheists is that we actually do believe in God, we're just acting out. It's not wanting to believe in God that the atheist is guilty of, not actually not believing in God.

But I knew what I felt. I felt that He did not exist. I had tried to get back the feeling that he did but failed. I had drifted from Christendom into agnosticism, theism, deism, and finally tried my hand at paganism. It was toolate for Pascal's wager and I was too disillusioned to take Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". But something still nagged at my, dare I say, soul. It wasn't long before I found myself with a copy of the Satanic Bible in my hands. I don't think that the average misanthropic teen escapes high school without at least one encounter with the late Anton LaVey's paean to the Dark Prince.

For those who are unfamiliar with LaVey's tome to the Devil, the Satanic Bible includes the Nine Satanic Statements, the 9th of which reads: "Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!" LaVey says that, while in his youth, he worked at a carnival, and on Saturday nights he would see the men leering at the young nubile dancers. The same men, who when they returned to the carnival grounds the next morning for the tent services, would stand next to their wives and children singing hymns to God. He saw the hypocrisy of the men who indulged their flesh on Saturday night and then begged for forgiveness on Sunday morning. LaVey says that he saw how the devil was used to manipulate people into believing that all things physical were inherently evil. But as he saw it, wanting physical pleasure comes natural to people, so how can what is natural be sinful?

After reading LaVey's book, I didn't come away an atheist (namely because LaVey's "satanism" is more akin to secular humanism than actual diabolism. So one conceivably, can be a Satanic atheist), but I did see one big point to consider: namely, that LaVey's Ninth Satanic Statement works in reverse.

It's easy to say that God has been the atheist's (humanist, satanist) best friend for all these yers, as he is the one that they've been railing about for all this time!

*although I know at this point that the Wiccans would say that since their religion has nothing to do with the Christian God, that he is not their best friend. If you don't believe this, just cruise on up to your local Wiccan and tell her (because it will almost always be a her) that Wiccans are like devil worshippers. If you don't know how to spot a Wiccan, just look for the "goddess" sized young lady with the flowing hair (she'll most likely look like a heavier-set Tori Amos) and the gossamer dress if Wiccans worship the devil. Sit back and get ready to hear about the 3-fold rule and the "burning times".

After reading Christopher Hitchens' god is not great, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian", and a handful of stuff by Michael Shermer, I realized that while I may be an atheist, I am a very Christian atheist. I realize that an atheist is only an atheist if he does not believe that there is no god. So far as our culture is concerned, that god that I maintain does not exist, is a Christian one. And like Christopher Hitchens, the god that I believe does not exist is not only Christian, but decidedly Protestant as well. I quote Hitchens, "I know enough about all religions to know that I would always be an infidel at all times and in all places, but my particular atheism is a Protestant atheism". As a product of the Protestant tradition, my atheistic values tend to echo exactly what I learned in Sunday school. I shouldn't kill or steal, or bear false witness. I believe that hard work will be rewarded, and that if one has a relationship with god, it is a personal one... And that the Pope is a sham. I cannot escape my Christian values even if I try to leave them behind. I find myself quoting Jesus on the subject of taxes or who we should treat the poor (heck, I even found myself referring to the feeding of the multitude when discussing health care). I still celebrate Christmas and prefer to hear traditional christmas hymns to the contemporary Christmas jingles by Michael Bolton or Boyz to Men (although I do like Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmastime"). I say "bless you" when someone sneezes, and I still write the word God with a capital G. And unlike Richard Dawkins, I wholeheartedly disagree that raising children in a religion is the same as child abuse. I always say that my hypothetical children are Christians. They gotta get their morals from somewhere, right?

We are all influenced, in one way or another, by the dominant culture. And whether I like it or not, I live in a Christian dominated/influenced culture. I can choose whether I accept the fact and move on, or whether I waste time protesting putting up "happy holidays" signs at Target. This is why I am, as I tell my friends, the most Christian atheist I know.

Although I find those who believe in God a little delusional, I understand that I can't be rid of him. I may say that I know that he doesn't exist, but there is a world out there full of people who believe that he does. And so far, I'm outnumbered billions to one. Nietzsche may have been correct when he wrote that God is dead, but like Elvis, there are still a whole hell of alot of people out there who go around singing his songs.

Tuesdsays With Maury

If there is any bit of television that makes me think that deja vu is real, it's the Maury Povich Show. Every time I tune into the show I swear I'm watching something that I've seen before: some bird has dragged in a number of equallly morally suspect young men (some of whom are related to each other) to have Maury erveal which fine specimen of erudite gentlemen is the sire of her child. By the time they figure out which one is, Maury has DNA tested half the guys in BFE Kentucky. Although I find the whole matter disgusting (I mean really, if there's one thing that a woman should be keeping track of, it's how many guys that she's balled in one week), I can't tear my eyes of the spectacle. And I'm so delighted when some dude is on who insists that he's never even had sex with his cousin's girlfriend ( he's usually the one hurling the most insults about her easy virtue) turns out to be the father. Spectacular! Watching the moment of revelation almost beats the fact that I've spent an entire afternoon not doing anyting even remotely constructive, like working for an actual paycheck. It's not that the entire experience is without shame --at least on my part. All the while I'm watching, I keep asking myself "why are you watching this crap?". When did Maury Povich's bi-weekly "you are NOT the father" show become something that is acceptable to air on broadcast television? I look at the parade of trash talkin', baby makin', semi-illiterates on Maury and I ask, from under which rock did these people crawl?!? Now, I'm not calling these people substandard to be insulting, I'm sure that when they're at home, some of them are really wonderful people. But what gets me mad is the fact that these people aren't just cartoons that entertain and then disappear as soon as the show is over. They're real people, who exist among us. And if that's the case, I think, then we, as a species, are in a bad way. I think while I'm watching, that there is no such thing as dignity anymore. Or modesty, or decorum, or shame. And I say shame on myself for watching the show in the first place. They wouldn't be there airing out all of their dirty laundry if there weren't an audience to watch. In an interview on NPR, Chris Hedges said that our culture has been emptied out and replaced by fantasy. He says that the worse that reality becomes for us, the more we run to distractions; what Hedges calls "pseudoevents" like, gossip, trivia, celebrity breakdowns, and the eroticization of our culture. When I was getting my poly sci degree, I had this professor who would go on rants from time to time about how things like Girls Gone Wild are ruining society by breaking down the barrier between the public and private spheres. He said that when we take our private business into the public arena, we make things that shouldn't be acceptable to do in public (like showing your boobs and other areas) acceptable. Once we've broken down that barrier, he said, there's nothing that is inappropriate. That's degrading to the culture, he concluded. I gotta say that I don't disagree. Everywhere is casual friday. You don't have to look around too hard to see it, either. Cell phone calls that are way too personal and way too loud, prominently displayed undergarments, people wearing pajama pants everywhere, celebrity sex tapes dominate what we see in the media and on the street. I used to think that eventually things would get back to "normal", that is, people wouuld see that they're making fools of themselves in public and start to behave. So far it hasn't happened. I used to think that acting stupidly on television would be an embarassing enough experience that people wouldn't do it. Apparently it's not. Because every week there's a new batch of ladies on Maury gene testing another batch of suspected fathers. They seem happy as clams up there on the stage. The point it seems, is that the important thing is to be on TV. So long as cameras are on them, they don't care why -- it's just to be on TV! They can go back home and watch the show when it airs and be local celebrities for awhile, jsut like all the other floks who make their living being professsionally famous. This seems to be the point of the whole thing. It doesn't matter how you get on the boob tube, so long as you get on. We get so fascinated with ourselves that we don't see what all of our narcissism is doing to us. In the movie Taxi Driver, Travis Bickle called it "morbid self-attention". It's getting so wrapped up in yourself that you fail to see that you're destroying yourself. Because when we look at ourselves we fail to see the world around us. And if you're always looking at yourself, then you're never looking at what's going on in the world. I remember when the whole President impeachment thing was going down, and Monica Lewinsky was making the rounds on the talk shows. Did it matter to anyone that she got famous for putting the president's weenie in her mouth? No, it didn't. Least of all, it didn't seem to matter to her. She never said "gee, I wish I had gotten famous some other way. This was is something that I should really be ashamed of". In our fame-based culture, you used to actually have to do something to get famous -- invent something, be good at something, cure some disease, act, dance, write, or sing (or all if you're a quadruple threat, like Justin Timberlake). There was an idea that notoriety had to be earned. Now it seems all you have to do is get on TV. Unfortunately, this is extremely easy. All you have to do is be freaky enough or better yet, have someone post your freakiness on YouTube, and you're set. You can be famous. So you can give the pres oral, it doesn't matter. Monica Lewinsky was going to be famous, and we were going to see her being famous no matter whether we objected or not. So is every other freak out there. That makes me think of a character in the movie The Ring, who tells a reporter to ind her own business and stop trying to find out what happened to his daughter. She tells him that she's trying to help. his response is one that I think applies to the Mauryization of our culture. He tells the reporter that they "take one person's tragedy and force the world to experience it... spread it like sickness". I think that shows like Maury Povich's have the same effect. I would think that Maury, if you asked him, would come up with some reason why having these people on his show benefits the public. He wouldn't realize that what his show does is spread an infection. It's a culture destroying infection. One that makes the obscene reasonable and feeds us nothing of any use for our minds or souls. Its's all bread and circus. And we all know what that did to the Roman Empire. Chris Hedges says that our culture has devolved into a culture of moral nihilism. Funny, that I think that ultimately Hedges and the founder of nihilism (that being Nietzsche) would conclude that our culture is headed on the path of destruction. Nietzsche says that our society is so screwed up because of the "plebian bias of the modern mind". Nietzsche laments the triumph of the common and the vulgar over the Noble and the Good. For Nietzsche, the ruination of society is in the triumph of the slave over the master. Nietzsche blamed the shift on Christianity, which places compassion among the most desired qualities of man, as the "slave" morality that has weakened the power of the master class over the rabble (that is, over you and me). Christianity elevated the poor, the weak, the meek (you know, all those inferior people who deserve to die), to the status of equals of the rulers. They did this, he says, because they had grown resentful of those who rule. So the slaves had to create a god that would tell the rulers that they must treat the slaves as equals, have compassion for those who cannot do for themselves. For Nietzsche, this is the wrong way to go. Although I don't connect Christian ethics to the cultural degradation of society as Nietzsche did, I think he is right on one point, that is, that our culture has bee overrun by appealing to the lowest common denominator. When people get famous for blowing the president, there is something wrong with us. If we don't have something that is the "better" morality to show us what is morally right, we'll continue to slide down towards the abyss of the Maury P0vich show as a way of life. A little overstated, but it's true. Back in the 60s, John Lennon famously said that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus". He was blasted for what he said, but in a way he was exactly spot-on. He was repeating what Nietzsche had said about God. For Nietzsche, we had killed God by replacing him with science. For John Lennon, he noted that his fans were more into the music of the Beatles than they were into gong to church on Sunday morning. Lennon was right in suggesting that celebrity often fills the role of god. When we talk about celebrities, we call them "stars". Stars, of course, are in the heavens, where God lives. We look t the TV to see the stars -- to see our cultural gods. This is the victory that Nietzsche was talking about, and what Chris Hedges meant when he says that our culture has been triumphed by spectacle. The victory (in our case) of the pseudo-famous and the fame wannabees over those who really should be looked at (meaning people of fine moral standing). Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you want to see it, I'm no Nietzsche. I'm not terribly eager to throw off all this spirit-destroying slave morality and live according to the will of the masters. I've got a feeling the the Ubermensche show wouldn't be all that entertaining. I mean, there would probably be no chance of a fist fight breaking out on stage between a couple of two-timing lesbians.