We CANNOT Permit Trump To Get Away With Blaming A Recession On Jay Powell!

That Trump is a feral rat is well known. That he is also a coward who will not hesitate to muddy any waters he can to escape blame may be less well known - especially among his 40 percent.  Look, it's no secret that for the past week the Turd -in -Chief has been pounding on Fed  Chair Jay Powell even more maliciously than usual.  I already noted in my Aug. 13 post the spectacle of this swine using his tariffs to try to strong arm the Fed into lowering interest rates.

At the same time,Dotard has denied his trade war with China has had ever more dire consequences for the markets, and the larger economy.    Let's back track a bit to note the DOW tanked  800 odd points after the Trump announcement of new China tariffs.   Seeing the curtains closing on their scam game, the Trump Bozos then gave themselves a 'mulligan',   delaying some of the higher tariffs until Dec. 15 this year..  Their excuse?  They want to give Americans a break before the Xmas holiday to shop their gym shoes, electronics etc. without getting clobbered by higher prices.  Never mind the lump of coal they will get after the holiday.

The move, for anyone observing with an IQ over room temperature digits, amounted to a stark open admission their trade war wasn't working, nor will it ever.   Apart from that, the appearance of the inverted yield curve  last Wednesday spiked further hysteria amongst the gangster Trumpites.  They knew - and we know -  that this is one of the most prescient signs of a recession.   Of course, in response, the markets dove again.  How could they not?

More concerning for Trump and his cabal is that they know the only leg he has to stand on for re-election is the economy. If that goes, as NY Times columnist Ross Douthat has noted, Trump  is a goner.  As Mr. Douthat so colorfully puts it:  "There is no way a president so widely disliked survives the evaporation of his boom."

So what's a no -count bum, con man, coward and criminal like Trump to do about it?  Well, as one writer (Aaron Blake) in Sunday's Denver Post Perspective section put it, he will be to try to"make Fed Chairman Jay Powell the fall guy." 

And why, pray tell, do that?  Well because "Amid all his controversies and unpopularity the economy is what has bouyed Trump".   So, were it to vanish, it is "difficult to see how his already difficult election math would add up".    Little wonder now Trump is  working fast and furious to discredit Powell and the Fed.   For example,  this 2-legged,  orange hued maggot   said Monday on Twitter, "Our Economy is very strong, despite the horrendous lack of vision by Jay Powell and the Fed."

 This from a lying imp who isn't fit to spit shine Powell's wingtips.  But as yesterday's front page Wall Street Journal piece ('Fed Caught Between Slowing Economy, Angry President') lets us know, Trump's "unyielding criticism of the Fed"  is now challenging its political independence.

But does Trump care? Hell no! He's already contaminated numerous other agencies and institutions to bend to his will, from the DOJ, to the EPA and even the Supreme Court.   So why not try to bring the Fed and Jay Powell into his orbit as well?  He's doing it by expressing regret for appointing Powell in the first place, as well as highlighting his mistakes.  No mention of Trump's own ginormous unforced errors such as starting a trade war with the 2nd largest economy on the planet.

As the writer (Aaron Blake)  goes on to paint the Trump strategy to undermine the Fed Chair:

"Trump's strategy in blaming Powell for whatever lies ahead would seem to be twofold: 1) He can lean on Powell to give in to what he wants for fear of getting the blame for anything bad."

Of course Trump, inbred rat  fungus that he is, would likely blame Powell in any case. That's his nature. He accepts responsibility for nothing, but will take credit for anything if it boosts his ego or emoluments.  Stock market soars, Trump takes credit.  Stock market tanks, Trump blames Jay Powell and the Fed.  As John Harwood put in on 'All In',  Trump is devoid of any economics or historical knowledge,  hence "the only standard Trump uses is himself and his own satisfaction."

And the other strategy move?

"And (2) if and when that bad economy does happen he can simply do what he always does and say: "It's not my fault this guy wouldn't listen to me."

So forget "the buck stops here"  as FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and any president with a residue of spine and moral fiber would agree. With Trump the grifter and con-man, the 'buck' of blame always goes to anyone other than his wretched, loathsome self.

The sad part as Blake points out, is that his cynical and sordid gimmick could actually work.  First, we already have 40 percent of our people dumb clucks to begin with.  They already believe anything Trump spouts on his Twitter feed or on FOX news.  Then there is another sliver, maybe 10 -15 %, who lack the critical thinking to get over the hump of doubt. And so they will be among those "who don't know whom to believe."

Here's a thought for Jay Powell when he attends the Jackson Hole, WY, annual central bank  conference this Friday - and especially after  having read the WSJ headline I cited

Just remember to tell your  Federal Reserve colleagues to replace the words 'angry president' with 'deranged resident'.   This will instantly put the mentally unbalanced buffoon's bluster in its proper perspective.  I.e. rhetorical excrement not worth dignifying with a Fed response - well,  other than to ignore the asswipe.

Also,  be prepared to defend and protect Fed independence from this 45th "president" who is more a poseur with no clue (or inclination) to govern a nation.

Lastly, the level of desperation to try to rescue Trump's economy has now grown to such magnitude that the Trump cabal is considering cutting payroll taxes to juice it.   (The payroll tax discussion was first reported Monday by The  Washington Post.)   Many lazy thinkers, or non-thinkers, might regard this as a terrific idea but it's actually god awful. The reason?

Doing so is effectively a raid on the solvency of Social Security!

Since payroll taxes fund current Social Security then cutting them amounts to cutting Social Security funding leaving it in a more parlous financial position.  This in turn will leave it more vulnerable to the privatizers and other predators licking their lips to savage it. Namely those austerity hawks who'd like nothing better than to subject it to budget cuts every year, now that the protection of payroll tax funding has been sliced.

Fortunately, such a payroll tax cut requires congressional approval and can't be done by fiat.  The  House Democrats would have to be blithering idiots to agree.  This is given how an even stronger economy would boost Trump's re-election chances.  It would also be the epitome of irony that the party that created Social Security would now act as a willing accessory to its destruction while also helping to re-elect the worst president in history.

See also:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/opinion/trump-recession.html?

Want to Prevent a Recession, Mr. Trump? Stop Hurting the Economy

And:

Alex Henderson

Trump and the Culture Wars: Here Are the Divisive Themes the President Will Focus on as His Economic Policies Crumble

by Alex Henderson | August 20, 2019 - 6:43am | 

Excerpt:

 "Donald Trump, in recent weeks, has been stressing both economic themes and culture war themes. The economic themes were evident during a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire on August 15, when Trump tried to frighten 401(k) owners into reelecting him and insisted, “You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes (under a Democratic president). So whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.” But if the U.S. does go into a recession in the months ahead, Trump will have a harder time selling himself as the salvation of the American economy — in which case, he would likely become even more aggressive in pushing divisive culture war themes."

U.S. Needs To Take In At Least Two Million Refugees - And One Million from Syria!

Syrian boy cries amidst refugee crush to leave Tovarnik, Croatia

"Syrians meet any standard for recognition as refugees with a well-founded 'fear of persecution', under the terms of the UN convention on refugees of 1951. Helping Syrians is a clear moral duty." - The Economist, Sept. 12, p. 13.

The news on the front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal ('U.S. To Raise Refugee Limit') was ludicrous to say the least. As reported, and as the European Union is flooded by up to one million Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi refugees now - the U.S. in its magnanimous heart - will raise its quota to 100,000 from 70,000 now. According to the piece:

"Mr. Kerry said that in fiscal year 2016 which starts in October, the U.S. would accept some 85,000 refugees including 10,000 Syrians the White House proposed earlier this month".

Whoopee Do! 10,000 Syrians when Germany is on a path to accept possibly 1 million with only one sixth the population of the U.S. and fewer resources., This is disgraceful!

Look, since the U.S. had a major hand in driving all these people (up to 4 million) out from their homes because of arming Syrian rebels to take down Bashar al Assad, it certainly has a bigger responsibility to take at least as many as the Europeans, (Islamophobes like Trump be damned)

Columnist Michael Ignatieff, writing in the International Ed. of the New York Times ('This Isn't a European Problem', Sept. 7, p. 10), put it thusly:

"The Syrian War has created about 4 million refugees. The United States has taken in about 1,500 of them. The United States and its allies are at war with the Islamic State in Syria - fine, everyone agrees they are a threat- but don't we have some responsibility toward the refugees fleeing the combat? If we've been arming Syrian rebels (against Assad), shouldn't we also be helping the people trying to get out of their way? If we've failed to broker peace in Syria, can't we help the people who can't wait for peace any longer?"

Indeed.  And he goes on to note the forces driving the refugees to flee the camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon - including their filth and squalor and lack of basic food - with funding having already been cut severely in some cases and repealed in others. (The World Food Program was recently forced to slash food allocations for refugees in Lebanon to $13. 50 per person per month. Try to process that!)

As he notes:

"Now the refugees have decided that if the international community won't help them - if neither the United States or Russia is going to force the war to an end - they won't wait any longer. They are coming our way. Blaming the Europeans is an alibi and the rest of our excuses, like they 'don't have the right papers' are sickening."

Again, right on. Conservative NY Times columnist Ross Douthat is also clear when he makes the ":plausible proposition" (op.cit., p. 11) that:

"the world's powers, the United States chief among them, had a responsibility to prevent the Syrian war from developing and to protects its victims once it did",

Adding:

"And since our various Syrian forays: clandestine aid to rebels, airstrikes (then held back), explicit aid to rebels - look like failures at the moment, we're partially implicated in the continuing catastrophe".

That means, if one accepts the proposition of plausible culpability, the U.S. must accept at least as much responsibility as its NATO-EU allies to take refugees in. It means we can't just smugly look on at the European situation and make token gestures while we wash our hands under the worn out excuse "well, we can't do it or dem t'errorists will sneak in".  The Germans - also faced with that line of thought - knew they had a greater humanitarian duty and have accepted up to 800,000 refugees already.

The U.S., having fomented a Pax Americana war to not only overthrow Assad, but demolish ISIS, has a similar responsibility, You can't just help tear the shit out of a country - reduce it to rubble - then tell its fleeing victims to go suck salt. (The U.S. has, of this writing, donated $419m to help the refugees but this is a 'drop in the bucket' when well over $10b is needed given some 4 million are in camps.)

The need for the U.S. to offer more help becomes more evident when one realizes what's happening now in Europe is only the first phase of a massive migration-refugee wave likely to add millions more each year. Some articles in the same NY Times Int'l editions have forecast nearly all the 11 million displaced Syrians will be soon on the move, not to mention over 1m Afghans who see no future in their bombed out nation, and 2m Iraqis who are unable to have a life because of the ISIS vermin (who entered after we meddled in Iraq and removed the one secular force inhibiting Muslim factionalism)

Bottom line, the U.S. can't look on and pat itself on the back for taking in a mere 100,000 refugees and only 10,000 Syrians - when it had a major hand in stirring up the original Mideast shit storm by invading Iraq in 2003  Europe simply will not be able to absorb all the millions, and as one Syrian refugee put it (ibid.) "we are coming and nothing can stop us".

Thus, to fully acknowledge our role in creating the "catastrophe" as Douthat puts it, we are morally obliged to take in at least the same number of Syrians the Germans will, and 1m more Afghans and Iraqis.

We cannot, in good and decent conscience, look on as these millions (most of them middle class people who've had their homes, neighborhoods bombed out) either perish in frantic efforts to reach safety or return in defeat to their homelands to be slaughtered by the ISIS bugs. We did as much for the fleeing Cubans in the 1960s- 80s so we can do as much now for the fleeing Syrians and others!


See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/63959/the-u-s-has-a-duty-to-the-tempest-tost-Syrians



and:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/96bf7e48-6041-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mSz73FXD

'NOAH' - A Biblical Movie That Even An Atheist Can Watch

Okay, first a bit of a disclaimer:  I am generally not a lover of Bible movies, for obvious reasons. I am an atheist and the Bible is mainly based on the surreal  and limited imaginations of its writers and hence  the accounts are myths, fabrications of their own minds. Having said that, the biblical extravaganza "Noah" caught my eye after one segment of Chris Hayes 'ALL In' several weeks ago when clips were played from assorted FOX shows and Glen Beck, with all of them going ballistic about this new Darren Aronofsky film.

From Hannity screaming on how it "betrayed" the poor widdo believers and their good Book, to Glen Beck howling "Blasphemy!", this suddenly became a flick I had to see. Especially after Ross Douthat observed in a recent National Review piece:

"Conservative believers feel beleaguered and beset, afflicted by a sense of culture war defeat:

Awwwww...... BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

If the fundies and their media lackeys hated it, and they did, then I wanted to see it!  Janice did too, and we weren't disappointed, as it satisfied our every rationalist expectation.

For those who might be unfamiliar with it, the story of "Noah" comprises books 6-8 of Genesis in the Old Testament. Basically, God becomes pissed at the humans he created as they have become "corrupt" and charges Noah with building an Ark with dimensions 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits, sealing its massive lumber pieces with pitch. He is then to bring the clean animals in by "sevens"  - male and female, and the "unclean" ones in by twos. These are to encompass all creatures of flesh, including snakes, as well as fowls of the air.

The rationalist skeptic has several problems with the Genesis account, including:

- How can the few 'friends -family' of Noah (maybe ten in all) get that enormous vessel made by themselves in a limited time?

- How can all the animals be safely stowed aboard without eating each other?

- How are all these critters kept quiet so they don't run amuck or cause chaos?

- Where is all the food to feed them, and how do you dispose of the tons of crap created each day?

- How can Noah and family  last 40 days if they are not supposed to eat their cargo?

- How can a world wide flood be generated in the first place?

All these problems are rationally solved with some concessions to artistic license and imagination. This is no biggie to we rationalists, since Aronofsky isn't relating the story of how Einstein developed special relativity but a basically mythical narrative told by semi-literate, pre-scientific sheep herders. We also get to see an entirely novel landscape - not Middle Eastern desert - but rather an ashy, ravaged, post -industrial landscape where the living humans have basically destroyed their environment (in much the way we are now, by over using resources)

The corrupt folk destined to drown are mainly the descendants of Cain, the killer of his brother Abel, but also innocents caught up in the predations of Cain's tribe (for example in one scene dozens of innocent females are being raped by Cain's lecherous knuckle dragger descendants). Noah's son Ham wants at least one of these females spared in order to become his wife, but after she's caught in an animal trap, Noah simply races over her dragging Ham with him. No time for saving any innocents here!  So, it's mainly Noah's immediate family.

In order to depict the building of the Ark, Aronofsky invokes the "Watchers" - based on Genesis' mysterious Nephilim. These were originally imprisoned in stone for their rebellion and now - at Noah's behest, become his servants: massive 50 -foot tall rock monsters who easily are able to rip up whole trees, take them apart, apply pitch and build the Ark. Obviously, accepting these denizens and their contribution requires massive suspension of disbelief, but no more than thinking a small family band could put an entire Ark together!

The scenes of the animals (especially the snakes)  arriving,  demonstrate incredible state of the art cgi graphics and are actually believable as the creatures swarm onto the vessel and find their respective carved- out niches.  As they're settled, a strange 'gas' is released from some plants and all the animals fall asleep. Problems of making nuisances of themselves - or getting hungry and eating each other -or defecating endlessly,  solved!

The other problem (of consuming the live cargo)  is solved because Noah and family are all vegetarians, so can consume an abundance of plants without having to kill one pig to barbecue! Meanwhile, all the precious critter cargo rests comfortably in hibernation until dry land is finally found.  (The only wild card in all this, is Tubal Cain, who somehow manages to get aboard the Ark, and gets Ham to kill one of the goats so he can eat it. As the animal bleats out a cry - this is intended to lure Noah to the scene so Tubal can kill him. )

How exactly did such a worldwide flood come about? At one point we are treated to a view from space which arouses pure awe:  the entire surface of the Earth is  covered from north to south, east to west,  by monstrous cyclones of the scale of Super storm Sandy. Could this actually occur? Probably not, but at least it made plausible how a global flood could manifest.

Is any of the movie believable? Of course not!  But Aronofsky's  artistic embellishments show the extent to which a gifted director must go to make a typical Genesis story credible. And further, it is precisely his departures from the Genesis script that make the movie appealing to the religious skeptic or non-believer.

Rolling Stone perhaps put it best on observing that Aronofsky's achievement was in "making 'Noah' relevant for believers and skeptics alike".

The aspect that most appealed to us was that Noah is depicted as a flawed human, but a conscientious one especially in terms of being a steward of the Earth - perhaps the original environmentalist. Of course, this very portrayal is what made conservatives' heads explode.

If you dig imaginative fare, with environmental themes and really epic scenes (perfect for the big screen), you could do much worse than watching 'Noah'.

Of Mangers and Materialism: What Ross Douthat Doesn't Get

NY Times Neolib-cum-Christianoid mouthpiece Ross Douthat in his latest clarion call ('Ideas from a Manger', Dec. 22,  Sunday Review) bids us to "pause for a moment" on our holiday shopping to "glance at one of the manger scenes". Therein, Douthat informs us, we ought to "see the scene not just as a pious set piece but as a complete world picture- intimate and comprehensive".

What, pray tell, is this complete world picture the manger scene offers? Douthat again:

"It's an entire world view in a compact narrative, a depiction of how human beings relate to the universe and to one another. It's about the vertical link between God and man- the angels, the stars, the creator stooping to enter his creation. It's also about the horizontal relationships in our society, because it locates transcendence in the ordinary, the commonplace, the low."

After presenting this, Douthat bemoans that this view is "increasingly losing market share to what you might call the spiritual world picture-   the divine is active in human affairs, every person is precious in God's sight- but doesn't sweat the details."

He describes this view as:

 "Christian-ish but syncretistic, adaptable, easy going and egalitarian. It doesn't care whether the angel really appeared to Mary- the important thing is that a spiritual version of that visitation can happen to anyone - including you."

This "spiritual syncretism"  would, of course, also comport with the worldview of my sister-in-law, Krimhilde, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/08/continued-conversation-with-krimhilde.html

How would Krimhilde respond to Douthat's take on her, and not being invested in literalist biblical traditions? I quote her from the above link:

"Reading those ancient books or bibles is like a college student groveling around in a nursery and still talking baby talk. Worse, the degraded level of the book writers, especially where they depict this “god” killing humans out of vengeance, is a reflection of their own base nature and desire for vengeance. Their degraded, low vibration souls hate so they write to make their god hate, like them. This bible god is no god of love.

The obsession with the 'good book' is based  on the anxiety to be right…..right, right, right….This impulse and need penetrates and suffuses everything. That’s why they clutch their bibles so closely, as if to worship the book itself."


Wow! Quite an eye-opener! But Krimhilde is much more correct in her take than Douthat is on his. Indeed, there is no evidence that any of the narrative reported in the New Testament gospels concerning the nativity is "true" or in any way historical.   Exegetical and historical document researchers have, in fact, confirmed that:  present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke. 

One way to verify that is to go back and examine the Old Testament, the Talmud and related documents that precede the NT and determine if an extant Nazareth existed. One will find that  “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century.  The Talmud though it names 63 Galilean towns, names Nazareth not one time.  Not once. More telling, though Josephus does cite Japha - a town about a mile from present day Nazareth, he doesn't mention Nazareth. So much for Douthat's manger scene, because if Nazareth didn't exist then we can conclude none of the other aspects did either, including the manger, the guiding star, the Magi and even that Yeshua was born an actual "God-Man", i.e. God incarnated as human. It is all an elaborate myth intended to communicate a spiritual message - but not to be taken literally.

So, here we have an answer for Douthat on why spiritualist folk like Krimhilde aren't inclined to pay too much attention to "details" that only exist in a mythical sense.

But Douthat isn't content to merely take the spiritual people and groups (like Eckanckar) to task. He goes after secularists as well. He bloviates (ibid.):

"The secular picture, meanwhile, seems to have the rigor of the scientific method behind it. But it actually suffers from a deeper intellectual incoherence than either of its rivals because its cosmology does not harmonize at all with its moral picture."

Actually, no "intellectual incoherence" is suffered because cosmology in the specific definition of the term does not entail any moral "picture". Cosmology refers to the study of the large scale universe or cosmos, its dynamics, behavior and composition - including dark matter, dark energy.  Thus, cosmology is a physical discipline that attends to and investigates physical factors of our cosmos. It does not treat morality so that secularists cannot be said to uphold a "cosmology that does not harmonize with its moral picture."

But, this is not to say that secularists embrace NO moral view. Indeed, in an article published in The Barbados Sunday Advocate in 1991, ('Materialism and Moral Values') I took pains to show how and why the philosophy of scientific materialism is compatible with moral values at their most fundamental level without having to interject mythic entities or gods. I noted:

"It isn’t necessary to wave a bible or the ten commandments at a Materialist, nor quote the "golden rule". The true Materialist, by definition, respects his fellow men and reveres all life, since he recognizes (through his philosophy) that they share a planet that may be unique in the cosmos. Thus, the true Materialist treasures and conserves the Earth's finite store of resources, since he comprehends that Earth also has one life to live - and there is no more after the existing resources are consumed.

With these things in mind, the true Materialist does not give his offspring any and every thing that grabs attention. He certainly does not wish to encourage the sort of wanton greed and over-consumption that has brought our world to its present sorry state. The Materialist knows well enough that the planet can ill-afford more such uncaring people.

Embodied within the above examples is a practical ethics, which has been forged out of the Materialist's reason and his priorities. This has one overriding aim: to cherish the Earth and all life upon it. Consequently, the true Materialist disdains all forms of violence, since ultimately these are inimical to the community and to species' survival. Since violent acts undermine a community's cohesion and threaten its very existence, the true Materialist must regard them as irrational. The Materialist is compelled to co-operate with his fellows and promote a common good, not out of fear for the wrath of a deity, but to held insure a thriving, harmonious community with high survival value.

As William Provine notes in his article Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics [1], young people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force's wrath, but to protect their own long-term self-interest.

Any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. For proof, one need only look as far as the upstanding Atheist or agnostic who inhabits every community and who - though he disdains a deity, nevertheless treats his fellows with compassion and respect. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to the one's own welfare.

Unfortunately, what the religionists have done is to take the natural code of ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. These are superstitious since, inevitably, they are linked to the supposed dictates of a supernatural "being" who will not hesitate to "punish" those who disobey "him". This includes injunctions to participate in - or attend, primitive rituals which celebrate a de facto cannibalism.

Christians, for their part, profess a ‘God of love’, but never hesitate to invoke fear (of eternal torment) to have their ethics adhered to. Logically, this suggests that the ethics is insupportable without the additional imposition of some type of "divine" retribution. A punitive ethics, then, is at the very core of the Christian religion, as it is many others. Sir Bertrand Russell, in his book Why I Am Not A Christian, precisely identifies ‘religion’s source of terror’ to account for the hold it has on so many. "

----------

The article received many kudos from letter writers, who said it was the first time they'd ever seen a coherent and logical discourse on a Materialist-based  ethics. Hitherto, they'd never realized that scientific Materialism and ethics could be compatible.

Douthat makes the same error, as when he writes (op. cit.):

"In essence (scientific Materialism) proposes a purely physical and purposeless universe, inhabited by evolutionary accidents whose sense of self is probably illusory. And yet it then continues to insist on moral and political absolutes with all the vigor of a 17th century New England preacher. And the rope bridges flung across this chasm - the scientific sounding logic of utilitarianism, the Darwinish justifications for altruism- tend to waft, gently, into a logical abyss.."

Which is total nonsense.  As any sensible person can see, on reading my articulation of ethical values based on scientific Materialism, though they are practical - and hence might be said to be "utilitarian" - that doesn't disqualify them from being more useful than Christian morality - which is based on what? Something a god did or didn't do in the Bible?   Or more relevant in Douthat's case: What the Catholic Church rules is moral or not based on its "Canon Law"?

To fix ideas, consider the nun excommunicated by the Catholic Church in Arizona 3  years ago for saving a 27 year old mother’s life at the expense of her fetus. Her moral choice was either to let the birth occur and see both mother and infant die, or prevent the birth (because of the mother’s blood pressure complications) and save the mother.

The nun made the utilitarian ethical choice over Catholic dogma. In this case, the greater relative good is always chosen over the lesser one. Hence, by practical Materialist ethics,  two deaths with two life saving efforts represents the lesser good, while one death with one life saving effort represents the greater one.  The error of the Bishop that excommunicated the nun was in upholding an absolute right to life ethic for both when in practical terms (that exercise of practical intelligence again) both could not survive. But this is the very danger of moral absolutism.

So in fact, contrary to Douthat's take, it is not within utilitarian ethics that absolutism resides, but rather in the goofy supernaturalism pushed by Christians.  If one can believe in the supernatural then, one can believe in an absolute standard which overrides practical reason and practical ethics. We call this "skyhook" thinking.

As Daniel Dennett once noted ('Darwin's Dangerous Idea')  - the hyper-religious like Douthat want to build their world and universe on "skyhooks" not cranes. Cranes, after all, have to hoist from the ground up to effect their constructions. They're prosaic, dirty material-mechanical flotsam and jetsam like cells, electric signals and chemicals. But oh those skyhooks! To toss them upwards and hook on to the ethereal, immaterial realm in the hyper yonder beyond the clouds and gross matter!

"BWAAAAAA....We don't want that! We wanna be GRANDIOSE beings! Made of sky and spirit not filthy matter! "


These delusional seekers fail to comprehend that for humanity to be one in harmony - no single subset can elevate itself as "more special" or more worthy" or more "grandiose" than any other. Irrespective of who or what they believe. And while it might be nice or appealing to believe ALL humanity is skyhook-engendered, in practice it never works! Because once the skyhook meme is admitted, one segment yearns to claim its supreme grandiosity and specialness for itself, and exclude the others! Much better to look at basic evolution out of the mire by natural selection, and how we all came to have the same basic DNA in our cells. "Brothers in DNA".

And once we get off our skyhook  addiction and concede a brotherly, material unity in biology and DNA, then the embrace of a practical ethics isn't far away.  In this world, we need more practical ethics or moral provisionalism, and less absolutism.

Douthat would do well to process that before he next bids us to stop and stare at manger scenes. True, to quote Douthat, "though a few intellectuals scan the heavens, they have yet to find their star." But maybe that's because no skyhook-based,  guiding star exists. We have to forge, as Materialists, our own "star"!
---------------------

[1] William Provine, ‘Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics’ (MLB Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, p. 25)

Pope Francis - a 'Feel Good' Choice for TIME Person of the Year

Two main contenders: Edward Snowden and Pope Francis. Snowden was runner up for Person of the Year, but ought to have taken it.

Well, the votes have come in and Pope Francis beat out Edward Snowden as TIME's 'Person of the Year'.  While I love this Pope and his plucky statements, let's face it: he hasn't affected world events, governments to the extent that Snowden has by his revelations of NSA snooping worldwide. Those have shaken governments to their core, re-aligned relationships, created diplomatic turmoil in the highest reaches of power, and informed citizens across the globe that their freedom is essentially a myth. Based on lots of fulsome rhetoric - but when the state or states can spy on them at will (see previous post )grabbing emails, cell phone messages, etc.  they are basically puppets.

Let us get it clear that the basis of the 'Person of the Year' award is not for the one "best loved" or even "most popular" or "most moral" - which is why TIME had no problem choosing Adolf Hitler once, to the consternation of most Americans.  It is based on the Person who MOST AFFECTED global events for that year. Thus, it would have been a no-brainer to choose Edward Snowden.

Pope Francis, as loveable as he is, has simply not actually affected the world beyond the 1.1 billion Catholics.  While he has chided the Vatican's fossils for their overweening attention to the "pelvic sins" (contraception, masturbation, abortion etc.) he has not actually changed any of the Church's doctrines in these areas or altered the Magisterium- based pronouncements or issued new encyclicals to redefine ethics.

Indeed, he comes nowhere near to the actual actions that had been planned by Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul 1, assassinated in September, 1978) who had intended to repeal the proscriptions against artificial birth control and also shake up the Vatican Bank, including ridding it of Paul Marcinkus. (See David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name').

So while on the religious ethics front Francis has delivered some terrific rhetoric, he hasn't really delivered in terms of actions.

He does merit credit for coming out strong against 'trickle down economics' and Neoliberal market capitalism, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

But even here, embedded Neoliberal Catholic columnists like Ross Douthat (of The New York Times) have written about Frances' remarks and exhortations can still be rendered compatible with Neoliberal market principles, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-pope-and-the-right.html

Excerpt:

it’s true that there is no Catholic position on, say, the correct marginal tax rate, and that Catholics are not obliged to heed the pope when he suggests that global inequality is increasing when the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.        But the church’s social teaching is no less an official teaching for allowing room for disagreement on its policy implications. And for Catholics who pride themselves on fidelity to Rome, the burden is on them — on us — to explain why a worldview that inspires left-leaning papal rhetoric also allows for right-of-center conclusions.

Meanwhile, by taking actual ACTIONS - Snowden has upended the entire national security state and even opened the door to powerful legislation to curb the excesses of the NSA. He has also opened the world's eyes, including those of tech companies, citizen users, to just how insecure their communications are and how unstable the platforms and the 'cloud'. Never mind the Neoliberal Constitutional traitors regard Snowden as the traitor.  This just shows how far removed they are from taking seriously their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution."

In other words, TIME's choice of 'Person of the Year' amounted to a feel good choice that wouldn't upset too many other than a small coterie of hard-backed conservative Catholics.  By contrast, if they'd selected Snowden they'd have had the whole constellation of Neoliberal politico assholes, puppets, media and zombies screaming at them and calling down perdition for TIME "honoring treason".

So, while one can understand the reason why TIME punked out and made the easy, non-controversial choice,  one also understands it embodies the lack of courage that has dogged American journalism since Bernstein and Woodward helped expose Watergate.

In any case, Snowden was named as runner up but we all know - those of us with sense and perception - he ought to have been first.