a froggy (faulty) comparison

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the value of life — not just human life, but life in general — and it all started with a casual status update that had to do with a pool full of frogs. Someone jokingly mentioned poison, and another agreed, saying something about there being "enough frogs in the world." I countered that it can be argued there are more than enough people in this world and asked if poison was a good solution for that too.

Of course, I realize they were just kidding, and I was being hyperbolic; but even so, I still think it's a valid point. From my point of view, a frog and a human are both living beings, and even in jest, I find the idea of euthanizing frogs simply because they're numerous troubling. Not only that, but I think the notion that our lives are inherently worth more should be challenged as well.

I imagine most people might see it differently, but I fail to see how a human life is objectively more valuable or important than the life of any other kind of living creature. Certainly we differ from other animals in a variety of ways — from our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence, to our levels of culture and communication — but that doesn't mean our lives are worth more in some universally objective sense.

In fact, I'd argue that the idea human beings are more important than other animals is an arbitrary and human-centric position, and in the grand scheme of things, the overpopulation of humans is more of a danger to the planet than the overpopulation of frogs. As far as I'm aware, there have been no recorded cases of frog-caused extinctions, but there have been a number of human-caused extinctions, many of them due to destruction of habitat and overhunting.

Subjectively speaking, I can see how the idea that the life of a human is equally as valuable as that of any other species simply because they're both living organisms may seem ridiculous. But the fact that most living creatures share a rudimentary desire to be free from pain (the highest pleasure in the Epicurean sense) makes it hard for me not to be empathetic towards all living creatures and respect them as much as possible. It's not that I think frogs or other animals are on the same 'playing field' with people, but I do think their lives are equally valuable simply for the sake of being alive (which is a bit of a tautology I suppose).

Don't get me wrong, I understand that all living things must consume/feed in order to survive, and some are dangerous and survival instincts almost always trump empathy. But the more I see that other animals are just as capable of feeling pain as we are, and considering our superior level of intellect and our ability to change and shape the environment, I've come to see our role on this planet differently. We've essentially become the caretakers of this planet and all the life on it, and our responsibility has transcended our position on the food chain.

In the past, we've failed to realize how much impact we actually have on the environment and it's been a costly mistake, not only in terms of environmental degradation but species extinction as well. Of course, I'm not talking about some frogs in a pool now, but the general attitude that we as a species have towards nature.

Sadly, it seems to be far easier for us to destroy what we consider to be a nuisance and 'lower' forms of life (i.e., everything else) than it is to respect them and treat them as if they also have a right to live alongside us. Many people think this is only natural, and in a sense they’re right, but it's my hope that we’ll eventually develop a less human-centric view—one that takes the lives of other creatures more into consideration.

national day of prayer unconstitutional?

The recent decision by a federal judge in Wisconsin that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional was brought to my attention by friend of mine today, who happened to post a couple of status updates about it on Facebook. Apparently, many Christian groups are outraged and wrongly accusing Obama of cancelling the National Day of Prayer service, never mind the fact that Obama is actually the defendant in this case.

Nevertheless, I think this case does raise an important question about the place of religion in government, and I have to say that I agree with the judge on this one. On matters of church and state, I take a position similar to that of Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the U.S. — who held that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state," and said that "civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents."

Of course, it can be argued that "recommending" a day of prayer doesn't technically violate the letter of First Amendment, and many presidents have done so in our nation's history, but I agree with the judge that the National Day of Prayer — a statute passed by Congress in 1952 and signed into law by President Truman — is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." In designating a day for the nation to "turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals," I believe that it violates the spirit and intent of the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment and, as such, it exceeds the power given to both the legislative and executive branches of government.

Not only that, but the bill itself was a blatant attack on atheists and political free speech — which is also protected by the First Amendment by the way — as evidenced by Sen. Absalom Robertson's (Pat Robertson's father) comment when introducing the bill in the Senate in 1952 as a measure against "the corrosive forces of communism which seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based."

The President can still issue a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer without it violating the Constitution. The judge herself made it clear that the plaintiffs had "standing to challenge section 119, but not to challenge presidential prayer proclamations generally." This is supported in part by the Supreme Court’s decision in 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers, where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer lead by a government funded chaplain was constitutional. But a federal statute (i.e., an act of Congress) mandating the president establish a national day of prayer almost certainly crosses the line.

While I strongly support religious freedom, I also support freedom from religion when it comes to the role of the state in public affairs. To be honest, I fail to see how the federal statute that establishes the National Day of Prayer has managed to remain standing for this long.

Sources: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802), Jefferson's letter to Rev. Samuel Miller (1808) and Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Obama.

obama authorizes assassination of u.s. citizen

According to a recent article at Salon.com, the Obama administration has authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen "no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield." Due process, what's that?

I understand that Anwar al-Awlaki may be involved with Al-Qaeda and therefore a potentially serious threat, but they're not even trying to hide their disregard for the Constitution anymore, they're coming right out and saying, "We don't give a damn about the 14th Amendment" with this "presidential assassination program."

Of course, most of us already knew that, but you'd think they'd at least pretend to uphold the Constitution or something. I guess even that’s too much to ask. It's not all bad, though. As someone I know put it: "Well, at least [the U.S. government] can only legally assassinate you if you're overseas... so, this is really a step towards equality, in a way. We'll now have the same rights as the citizens of all the countries that the U.S. has occupied over the past century!"

Seriously though, I find it deeply troubling that Obama has chosen to continue this abhorrent policy, which was started by George W. Bush, although never actually implemented by him. If Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize then, he most certainly doesn't deserve it now.

a sprawling mess of politics, history and healthcare

On the Oregonian's public blog, My Oregon, Paul G. Rollis wrote:

"A Rose by Any Other Name..." (socialism, corporatism, progressivism, marxism, etc.)

You can also throw in communism, for good measure.

As people argue for and against each of the above, most seem either to ignore or are completely ignorant of the one thing that they ALL have in common. Each is based upon the basic idea that government should have constantly increasing, perhaps all, power to run a society. This, in turn, is based upon the idea that the government knows what is best for you, regardless of if you like it or want it or not. This is a proven form of creeping dictatorship with the concomitant decrease of individual rights and freedoms and the total loss of any meaningful power of the people in a democratic system. It gradually eviscerates and makes meaningless the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Some of the proponents of these systems knowingly work for imposing these systems of government upon a society, but they rarely are open and honest about their goals, because they know that most people do not want to lose their rights and freedoms. This often causes the supporters of these ideas to operate in secret and with deception in order to gain their goals.

Does this have any bearing on the 2700+ page health care reform bills currently proposed by the Democratic Party in congress? I think so, and if you actually know what the bills contain, you would probably think so, too.

What a surprise. Someone using the word "socialism" pejoratively is equating healthcare reform with big government, and big government with the "loss of any meaningful power of the people in a democratic system." So, liking a good debate every now and then, I replied with:

Technically speaking, socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. While governments can be more or less socialistic, socialism itself is a mass movement towards economic democracy — collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit — and the creation of an egalitarian, classless society.

While some types of socialism have taken the form of state socialism, whereby the state becomes the sole capitalist in the name of the people, this method has proven to be the best way to unsuccessfully implement socialism and lead to the installment of repressive totalitarian regimes that exploit their citizens more than capitalism ever could (e.g., the authoritarian and militaristic style of socialism that dominated China and Russia). Democratic socialists (e.g., Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, etc.), on the other hand, actually push for a more decentralized and directly democratic economy and political system.

What this has to do with the [current] healthcare debacle, however, I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, it misrepresents a host of socialists' politics by utilizing the same socialism = statism straw man argument that almost everyone propagates to death—as if every extreme form of government intervention in the economy in which production is dominated by an authoritarian political regime or state is equivalent to socialism. This is exactly the same kind of red-baiting Reagan used in his 1961 LP recording for the Operation Coffee Cup campaign against medicare, or as Reagan called it, "socialized medicine." As if medicare was some kind of danger to democracy and individual liberty. Pfft.

And even if the universal healthcare like they have in those horrible places like Britain, Canada, France, etc. can be considered "socialist," the kind of aggressive government intervention that has taken place in this country with the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street should really be called something like "corporatism," "state capitalism" or "state corporate capitalism" because it's pretty much doing the exact opposite of what socialism entails when it takes money from average workers via taxes and gives it to giant, multinational corporations.

What is truly leading the loss of democracy in this country is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. For example, people can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their obligation. But hell, they don't even do that. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout!

But we need to do even more than that. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can change as much as my activism can. Nevertheless, I'd be much happier about our electoral system if we had public financing of elections and the ability to immediately recall representatives if we felt that they weren't doing their jobs effectively. That would not only help to remove all of the big-monied interests from Washington, it would help put power back into the hands of the people.

Rollis responded:

Obviously you can not see the pervasive correlation between the increase of socialist "economic" goals and the loss of personal rights and freedoms, or the ever-increasing power of government. Where, if anywhere, do you see the tipping point when the people no longer are in control of the government, and, instead, the government has total control over the people?

Also, I see that you very conveniently left out of your description of socialism one of its most important characteristics, namely, the allocation of resources.

That is the source of concern of the American people regarding the health care reform bills, because this "allocation of resources" concept is the basis of inevitable rationing, or worse yet, the complete denial of medical care to those who need it. This is the current practice in all of those European countries that already have socialized medicine.

To which I answered with this sprawling rebuttal:

The allocation of resources is an inherent part of any type of economy. In free-market capitalism, for example, the allocation of resources is controlled primarily through the price mechanism. In mixed economies, resources are allocated through a combination of the price mechanism and allocation via various government agencies (e.g., think of a public resource like water that needs to be used for public consumption as well as things like irrigation, etc.).

As for resource allocation in our current healthcare system, insurance company bureaucrats routinely deny coverage and "ration" care. That is how insurance companies make their profit, after all. The real question is, who do we want to be in charge of approving medical care, an insurance company bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat? Each has its own pros and cons, but for the most part, more "socialized" healthcare systems that cover everyone have proven to be quite efficient and reliable.

According to the World Health Organization, for example, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.

In 2005, France spent $3,926 per capita on healthcare, and of that, approximately 80% was government expenditure. The U.S., in comparison, spent $6,347, and of that, approximately 45% was government expenditure. Yet France has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Although, to be fair, I've heard it mentioned that the U.S. counts premature births whereas France doesn't, and these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone as there are undoubtedly other factors involved, e.g., eating habits, stress levels, etc.)

Or how about Spain's healthcare system? Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal healthcare and requires the state to provide it, it's ranked 7th best by the WHO, and according to one study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs, there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the U.S.

And then there is Canada's healthcare system, which was quite similar to ours before they adopted a single-payer system. It's not only ranked higher than the U.S. system by the WHO (30th v. 37th out of 191 nations), but like France, Canada has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. (Again, these differences can't be attributed to the differences between the two systems alone, but I think it at least goes to show that Canadians seem to be doing OK with the system they've got.)

In addition, a 2006 peer-reviewed study of healthcare access in Canada and the U.S. done by the American Journal of Public Health concluded that "U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines." Of course, every system has its problems, but I'd still say that Canada's system is pretty damn good considering it covers everyone and costs less per person than ours.

As for the for the idea that we're losing our democracy to the tyranny of "big government," you can't lose what you've never really had. What we're really losing is the fight for economic and political democracy in the U.S. The state has been skewed in favour of the ruling class from the very beginning. Although some of the Founders, namely Thomas Paine, did advocate for things like the abolition of slavery, free public education, progressive taxation, social safety nets (e.g., old-age pensions), etc., for the most part, the Founding Fathers, while arguably great men, weren't fighting for universal freedom and suffrage, they were fighting for the freedom of white, male property owners from the tyranny of the British monarchy.

Like most forms of government centered around property rights, the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society."

The Federalist Papers, as you might know, were a series of essays arguing for the ratification of our Constitution. Federalist No. 10, written by Madison, addresses the question of factions, which he defines as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Believing that an individual's "interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity," he saw a groups of individuals, or factions, as an even greater threat to individual liberty, even though paradoxically, he saw liberty as the cause by which factions arise. His solution, then, was to try to control the effects of factions within American society. This could be accomplished, he argued, by the establishment of a republic in favour of a direct democracy. And the representatives in this new republic were initially elected by a select few, namely white, male property owners.

While I agree with Madison, albeit somewhat reluctantly, about the dangers of having a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest who can take away the rights of the minority of other citizens, this can just as easily lead to the reverse, e.g., a minority of wealthy/propertied interests excluding the majority of poor/propertyless from voting, or in our case, from influencing the political process (e.g., the 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that overturned certain longstanding limits on political campaign spending by corporations, effectively giving them even more lobbying power).

One of the few things I think Andrew Jackson got right (as opposed to his support of slavery and the Indian Removal Act) was his support for expanded suffrage, which at that time meant extending the right to vote to include all white males instead of just white, male property owners. Without removing this form of class antagonism, civil unrest on the part of the poor and disenfranchised could have gotten to the point where revolt was a serious possibility. Removing this restriction, however, allowed more people to become directly involved in the political process, giving them (at least in theory) a more constructive way to address their grievances than violence. It was the first step in the ongoing fight for equality and universal suffrage.

But as a general principle, the ruling class seeks to do as little for the average citizen as it can. It wasn't until 1870, for example, that African American males were allowed to vote. And women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. 1920! So what changed? Was it the interests of the ruling class? Perhaps in some cases, but the vast majority of changes came after long, hard struggles by average men and women seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the abolition of slavery to the right of women to vote to the 40 hour work day, it was due to the bravery of ordinary, everyday men and women who were willing to stand up and fight for what they believed in that we have these things today.

Regardless of where one stands on economic democracy and private ownership v. collective ownership of the means of production, I think it can be agreed upon that part of the reason we're losing the battle for political democracy in the U.S. is the lack of civic participation on the part of its citizens. [As I said before], people can't just vote once a year and think that's the end of their civic obligation. But hell, most of the time they don't even seem to do that much. Here in Oregon, for example, we can vote by mail. We don't even have to leave our house to vote and we still can't reach 100% turnout! Voter turnout [in the U.S.] for the 2008 presidential election was only 63%. And many statewide elections are decided by even less.

But we need to do even more than that to win and secure our political freedom. We need to call and write our representatives. We need to go to their offices and talk to them face to face. We need to run for office [ourselves]. We need to organize with other like-minded individuals and push for the policies we want. We need to take to the streets in rallies and protests if need be. I vote, but I'm not under the illusion that my one vote can have as much of an impact as my activism can.

That said, I'd be much happier about our electoral system if we at least had public financing of elections and the ability to immediately recall representatives if we felt that they weren't doing their jobs effectively. It would not only help to remove all of the big-monied interests from Washington, it would help to finally put real political power into the hands of the people. But that will only happen if people demand it, which is why I believe apathy and complacency are the real enemies of freedom in the U.S.

natural rights

On an internet discussion forum that I regularly frequent, there's an ongoing debate about natural rights. I think the issue of natural rights is an intriguing subject. And while I'm not well-versed in political philosophy enough to debate the finer points of whether certain rights are something inherent to humankind or the product of government, I tend to agree with Jeremy Bentham's assessment articulated in Anarchical Fallacies:

That which has no existence cannot be destroyed—that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense: for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle.

In addition, I think Bertrand Russell makes some interesting observations in A History of Western Philosophy regarding the philosophical ideals and scientific discoveries of ancient Greek philosophers that gave rise to the modern idea of natural rights. For example, he writes that:

When the Declaration of Independence says "we hold these truths to be self-evident," it is modelling itself on Euclid. The eighteenth-century doctrine of natural rights is a search for Euclidean axioms in politics*. (*Here he includes a footnote that "self-evident" was substituted by Franklin for Jefferson's "sacred and undeniable.")

And this ideal itself essentially grew out of a "refined type of error" in mathematical knowledge originating from ancient Greek thinkers, especially Pythagoras, who believed that mathematical knowledge was superior to that of empirical knowledge in that it was thought to "supply an ideal, from which every-day empirical knowledge fell short." Because of this, Pythagoras ascribed a primacy to thought over sense, and intuition over observation. Thus:

If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. In various ways, methods of approaching nearer to the mathematician's ideal were sought, and the resulting suggestions were the source of much that was mistaken in metaphysics and theory of knowledge.

The problem, as Russell later points out, was the inherent one-sidedness in their thinking (emphasis mine):

The Greeks contributed, it is true, something else which proved of more permanent value to abstract thought: they discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible. But in connection with mathematics the one-sidedness of the Greek genius appears: it reasoned deductively from what appeared self-evident, not inductively from what had been observed. Its amazing success in the employment of this method misled not only the ancient world, but the greater part of the modern world also.

Nevertheless, even though I tend to side with Bentham here, I also agree with Daniel Dennett, who writes in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that, "Perhaps talk of rights is nonsense upon stilts, but good nonsense." Why? Because when taken out of the context of government, the very notion of rights seems meaningless to me as government itself is the "stilts" upon which rights stand. What are rights but, as one person phrased it, "the product of social agreement and endeavour"?

assisted suicide

I heard about this on the radio yesterday:

The Suicide Tourist

What a heartbreaking story. It's about a man named Craig Ewert, a retired professor living in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, who was suffering from ALS and decided to end his own life via assisted suicide. The worst part was hearing an interview with Ewert's wife, who said that they could have had more time together if assisted suicide was legal in England. (In England, assisted suicide is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.) Since it wasn't, Ewert, who decided it was better to do it while he was still physically capable, travelled to Switzerland where assisted suicide is legal.

I've never really seen assisted suicide as a black or white issue, especially from the point of view of the physician or whomever is providing the assistance, but sometimes we're just not able to endure all of the difficult circumstances life has to throw at us. Incurable illnesses that cause great amounts of pain and/or cause one to become a prisoner in their own body can be unbearable for the average person, and it's absurd to expect that everyone should live up to some idealized standard of morality that's arbitrarily placed upon human existence or exhibit superhuman endurance.

I think individuals should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, and I support a person's right to end their own life with help if and when they are deemed to be sober and of sound mind. I applaud Montana, Oregon and Washington here in the U.S. for their allowance of physician-assisted suicide. In my mind, it's a personal choice that's the individual's alone to make, and denying a person that choice is equivalent to torture.

lost at sea

As I sit here, listening to the rain fall lightly on the quiet streets, I find myself lost once again.

I lose myself more often than one might think, but it's something I've grown accustomed to over the years. It usually happens during periods of personal difficulty and stress, or when I get so absorbed in the tide of worldly affairs that I get swept out to sea. This time, I think it's a bit of both.

In seeking to define myself and my place in the world, I've been ripped from the shore of self-knowledge and swept out into the sea of existential dread. And in the midst of my ever present mortality, I struggle to find something to cling to.

But where is there a refuge to be found? My heart itself is a sea of contradictions that storms with the winds of emotional fury. Anger. Sadness. I want to rage against the world and cry out of compassion at the same time. Idealism. Hatred. I want to right all the world's wrongs and I want destroy everything. Terror. Desperately gasping for air as I find myself being pulled under by currents stronger than I can endure.

What is it that I'm so afraid of? What more is there to lose than one's self? Why do I bother screaming at the world to save me when I know that it wouldn't even if it could? What is it that I'm looking for?

Maybe I'm not really looking for anything. Maybe there's nothing to find. Maybe it's in the search itself that I simply find some semblance of comfort.