Secular Reasons

The other day I saw an interesting opinion piece on the NY Times website entitled "Are There Secular Reasons?" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/). For those who can't be bothered to click on the link (or in case the link goes dead), I'll try to summarize the argument made by the writer, Stanley Fish, who is in turn summarizing arguments made by professor of law Steven Smith in his book The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. To begin with, Fish talks about the effort of secular thinkers to separate religiously-based reasoning from purely secular reasoning, and to establish the latter as the sole basis for organizing a society. He then goes on to talk about Smith's thesis that in fact it is impossible to make any sort of value judgments on the basis of secular reasoning alone, as secular thought is only capable of collecting and analyzing data, but not of deciding what to do with it, without importing non-secular concepts and value judgments. Smith asks how "could one squeeze moral values or judgments about justice . . . out of brute empirical facts?" As Smith and Fish in turn point out, a number of people have made similar arguments in the past. In addition to the thinkers they mention, the arguments made by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man fall along the same lines. For that matter, even my own first post on this blog acknowledges the fact that it is impossible to make wholly objective judgments about anything, a point which is related to the one being made here.

Though I think Smith and Fish, like others before them, make some very good points, ultimately I don't agree that it is impossible to make any moral judgments based on secular reasoning alone, or at least, it is only necessary to include one concept that is arguably from "the suspect realm of contested substantive values". That concept is that it is better to be happy than it is to be unhappy. Even this can be said to have an empirical basis, at least in that if you did a study in which you asked people to give their own (admittedly subjective) answer to this question, the answers would be overwhelmingly positive, and all sorts of studies have already shown that happy people are healthier and live longer. In any case, if we, to use Smith's terminology, "smuggle in" this one concept, virtually everything else on which modern liberal philosophy is based can be argued from this basis without resorting to much vaguer ideas like "freedom" or "equality" (though these can also be supported by arguments starting from the concept that "happiness is good").

If we accept that it is better to be happy than unhappy, then the next question we have to ask is what kind of society is most conducive to individual happiness? It might seem at first glance that one in which everyone is completely free to pursue whatever makes them as individuals happy would be ideal. But if everyone is free to pursue their own happiness at the expense of others, many conflicts will result, and so everyone will in the end not be happy, except possibly those few who through great fortune or skill always end up on top. Even these individuals will always be under threat from others if their luck takes a bad turn, so it is questionable whether their happiness will be that secure. So if complete unfettered individualism isn't the ideal basis for a society, than what is?

A simple answer is a society that follows what we call the golden rule, i.e., we should treat others as we want to be treated. If everyone is pleasant to everyone else, ultimately everyone will be happier. It might be added that it is in the end to the advantage of those who are more fortunate to give up a little to ensure the happiness of those less fortunate, as again it has been demonstrated by all sorts of studies as well as by much of human history that societies with too large a gap between the advantaged and the disadvantage are at risk for all sorts of problems and conflicts, which again will result in less happiness for all. Furthermore, it can also be argued that restrictions on behavior beyond those necessary to prevent people from strongly hindering the happiness of others (as in the golden rule) reduce happiness for many and create further conflicts. So both equality and freedom, at least in a general sense, can be argued to be good simply from our starting proposition.

Admittedly the above is extremely simplified, and the fact that no one can be completely objective will complicate any detailed arguments. But my point is one can argue the good of a modern liberal society from secular reasoning alone, assisted by at most one "imported" value judgment. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that the argument of Smith et al gives rise to the question of what they think value judgments and society's rules in general should be based on. If values from religion, then what religion? On what basis is that particular value judgment to be made? Ultimately this argument simply leads us in circles. If, on the other hand, we simply start from the goal of trying to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, then we can argue all the other details from there, using purely secular reasoning. While this does not necessarily mean that there is no truth in religion or that religion might not be meaningful for the soul (assuming we have them, which is another argument altogether), it does mean that society can and indeed should be founded on a secular basis.

US trip

We just got back to Taiwan from a long trip in the US, our first in several years. On this trip, we spent all our time in Dallas, unlike previous trips on which we also went to New York and sometimes other places. Things hadn't changed a lot in the old neighborhood, though while we were there something unusual for Dallas did happen; it snowed heavily, with snow falling pretty much for an entire day, so that by the end of the day there was around a foot (about 30 cm) of snow on the ground, a record for Dallas. Snow is not completely unknown in Dallas, as it snows about once a year or so (at least that's what I recall), but usually it's a light dusting. The most snowfall in a winter was one year when I was in elementary school; if I remember right, close to two feet of snow fell over that winter. That record still stands as of now, since the total snowfall this winter is still a couple of inches less. But the heaviest snowfall in one day that year was about 7 or 8 inches (18 to 20 cm), so it was far less than the daily total we experienced during our visit (only one previous daily snowfall came close). In any case, the snow was a big contrast to Taiwan, where it only rarely snows at all, and then only on the tops of a few mountains in very small amounts. I've never seen snow in Taiwan, and it had been years since I'd seen it up close anywhere.

Other than enjoying the snow, we spent our time visiting with family, going to bookstores, and eating at fast food restaurants that Taiwan doesn't have (as well as a few non-fast food restaurants, with the Olive Garden and Franky's being standouts). It was a pretty good visit, though as usual there were plenty of things that I would have like to have done that I didn't get around to doing. Regardless, now that I'm back in Taiwan, I have to get back into to the rhythm of things here. As is often the case after a trip to the US from Taiwan, coming back has reminded me again of the contrasts between the two countries. Though I don't really think the effect these differences have on me are strong enough to call culture shock, as I generally adjust to new environments fairly easily (except where it comes to food, an area where I tend to be more set in my ways), they are interesting to observe.

The most immediately obvious difference between the US and Taiwan is the fact that the US is much less crowded. Though it's the third most populous country in the world, the US is far less densely populated than Taiwan, which is one of the world's most densely populated nations. Everything in the US seems very spread out, and though the roads are often packed with cars, you rarely see crowds like those in Taiwan. An exception to this is New York, which resembles many major Asian cities in its concentration of people, but as I said, we didn't go there this trip. Another contrast is the people. The US has far more variety when it comes to races, with whites, blacks, Hispanics and people of Asian ancestry all being frequently seen in many places. Another less positive characteristic of the US population is that they are much more likely to be overweight. These are the most immediately apparent differences, though there are of course many more. Bill Bryson was able to write an entire book's worth of newspaper columns about differences between the US and the UK (I'm a Stranger Here Myself), and those two countries are not as different as the US and Taiwan.

Since I'm on the subject of our US trip, I will also mention my trip to the DPS office. I was hoping to get a new driver's license (my old one having expired years ago), but I couldn't even join the long lines of people waiting to take the tests because I didn't have proof of my Social Security number (having lost my SS card a long time ago). What, one might ask, does your Social Security number have to do with getting a driver's license, given that you have other documents to prove your identity? My guess is that it's another absurd anti-illegal immigrant measure. Since illegal immigrants will not have Social Security numbers, requiring proof of one will make it difficult for them to get a license. Assuming that this is the reason for this requirement, what will it accomplish? Will they be so disappointed in their inability to obtain a driver's license that they'll just go back to their country of origin? No, they'll just drive without licenses. That's sure a useful accomplishment. Though I may be wrong about the reason behind this particular rule, it remains true that there are some pretty absurd anti-illegal immigrant measures in places like Texas. Of course Taiwan doesn't really treat immigrants any better; in fact it makes it even harder to immigrate legal in the first place.

Anyway, enough rambling. Now that I'm back in Taiwan, I've got to get back to my Taiwan schedule. Hopefully it'll still allow me time to post entries here occasionally. With a little extra time and effort, some of them should even be a bit more coherent and interesting than this one....

The Dalai Lama and US-China Relations

As those who have been paying attention to the news know, US President Barack Obama recently met with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. While Obama should be commended for going through with the meeting in the face of the usual vociferous Chinese protests, it is regrettable that like previous presidents he kept the meeting low-key. While viewed from a purely pragmatic point of view (and despite efforts by the lunatic fringe on the right to portray him as a wild-eyed leftist, Obama is clearly a pragmatist), this approach might seem best, in the long run making such efforts to accommodate the Chinese simply encourages them to continue not only oppressing the Tibetans but also to try to dictate to the rest of the world what their relations to the Tibetans will be.

As I explained in a previous article, Tibet is essentially a colonial territory of China, subjected to the same kind of old-fashioned imperialist exploitation that many parts of the world were subjected to by the Europeans in the past. Since the Chinese consider themselves to have been victims of imperialism in the past, most of them refuse to recognize that they are also imperialists, but an objective examination of the history and current status of places such as Tibet and East Turkestan can only lead to that conclusion. Therefore, for the Chinese to claim that meetings between the Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of the Tibetan nation, and foreign leaders constitutes interference in their internal affairs, is about equivalent to the British loudly denouncing any foreign leader who met Mahatma Gandhi in the days before India became independent (I don't know if how the British actually reacted to any such meetings, if any ever took place, but I imagine few would now consider such objections reasonable). In fact, the Dalai Lama is even more clearly deserving of the right to meet foreign leaders as an equal. Not only is his position as a religious leader of followers of Tibetan Buddhism roughly analogous to that of the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church, but in his youth he was the political leader of Tibet when it was still an independent country, and remains the head of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Even if we accepted that the affairs of a colonial territory could be considered the "internal affairs" of the imperial occupying power, human rights considerations would still demand that foreign leaders meet the Dalai Lama regardless of Chinese objections. To make another analogy, imagine that in the days of apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela had been in exile outside of South Africa rather than a prisoner inside it. Would Western leaders have refused to meet with him or even made special efforts to keep any meetings low-key just because the government of South Africa objected? Considering the strong opposition to apartheid in the West, it seems unlikely. While the ways in which the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans and their culture are different from the way the white rulers of South Africa oppressed the blacks, the oppression is just as bad, and the place that the Dalai Lama holds in the hearts of Tibetans is similar to that Nelson Mandela held among black South Africans (not to mention the formal positions that the Dalai Lama holds, something which Mandela did not have before the end of apartheid).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the world's countries seem to be too afraid of China to openly defy it, at least not to the extent of treating a meeting between their leaders and the Dalai Lama just like they would a meeting with any foreign leader. While I recognize the desire of the US and other countries to get China's cooperation on many issues, I am of the opinion that respect for human rights, anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, and self-respect on the part of democratic nations demand that China not be allowed to dictate how they treat a leader such as the Dalai Lama.

Constellation and the Future of the US Space Program

Not long ago, Obama released his latest budget proposal. As was pointed out in a number of news articles, the budget included a small increase in funding in NASA, but eliminated all funding for the Constellation program which would have returned humans to the Moon. This was a disappointment, as long-term human missions to the Moon and Mars would be a very big step for human progress and would inspire younger generations to study science and engineering. In fact, there is very little that the US government could spend money on that would provide greater value in terms of an investment in the future, especially considering how little money is actually spent on space compared to all the other things the US government spends money on (an issue I addressed in a previous post). The lack of a major investment in NASA is certainly a disappointment, one which Obama has to be held responsible for. I don't even really consider the huge deficits he has to deal with much of an excuse, considering how many other things he could cut (unfortunately one of the best things to cut, the military, was one he left untouched), the option of raising taxes, and the relative minor sums involved.

Nevertheless, there were good arguments for rethinking Constellation, at least as it was being run. While Dubya's call for NASA to put plans in place to return to the Moon was a good thing, the problem was he didn't follow it up by calling for Congress to actual fund the plan properly. As a result, Constellation was way behind schedule and NASA had only been able to keep it going by taking funding from other important programs. While the original idea was that humans would be back on the Moon by 2020, at the current state of the program, the actual date would have been more like 2028, if that. So the only way to rescue the program would have been by dramatically increasing NASA's budget. While this would have been what I would have really preferred, I'm not entirely surprised that Obama didn't go for this option giving the current budget situation.

A positive aspect of Obama's NASA budget is that it calls for a serious rethinking of NASA's role, funds a number of important science programs and helps promote private industry in space. While I generally prefer public programs, I have no objections to the idea of private industry becoming more involved in space, as long as it is properly regulated, not with tons of red tape, but with a suitable regard for safety and appropriate restrictions on the exploitation of resources. If private companies can start sending people into Earth orbit and even to the Moon, that would be great, as long as they are reasonably safe (not perfectly safe, as that is impossible) and they are not permitted to exploit space resources without restriction -- no unrestrained strip mining on the Moon for private benefit, for instance. But there is still a need for a robust government space program, especially for major efforts like putting humans on Mars. Hopefully, if he can succeed in getting the federal budget under control, Obama will take a more forward-looking approach to space and fund a more ambitious human (and robotic) exploration effort.

Update - Here's an interesting article discussing future goals for NASA: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_sc/us_sci_nasa_future;_ylt=Aq_JVsoa78mqsfOTK3mhbzhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2NDAzMjdkBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNNd19WaXRhbGl0eQRzbGsDZm9ybmFzYW5vZWFz

The emphasis on developing new rocket technology is definitely a good idea, but I also agree with those quoted in the article who think that it would be best if there was a clear goal to shoot for.

The Origin of Species

I recently finished reading one of the most famous scientific works of the modern age, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I'll have to say it is a pretty impressive piece of scholarship. His prose is generally quite readable, though some parts are rather slow going, especially towards the beginning where he goes into fairly exhaustive detail about his and others research with pigeons and various plants. Still, the general reader (assuming a modicum of intelligence and education) will have no problem following the majority of it. His arguments are very well laid out, and I was particularly impressed by his effort to anticipate all the possible objections to his theory, and do so in a very modest way ("a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader..."; "objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume..."). He discusses his theory from almost every possible angle, and even given that we know far more now than we do then (he didn't know about genetics or DNA, for example), his arguments are still very much valid -- if anything, many have since been strengthened by later research.

Perhaps a brief recapitulation of Darwin's theory is in order. Briefly put, variations are common among individuals of all species, and all of these individuals engage in a struggle for existence, both with members of their own species and with other species. If some variations among individuals prove advantageous in the struggle for existence, they will tend to be preserved among later generations, and by a slow, gradual process will accumulate to the point that new species arise. Darwin called this "Natural Selection", in something of analogy with artificial selection used by humans in breeding dogs, horse, pigeons and other animals and plants (the term "survival of the fittest" did not originate with Darwin, though he did add an approving reference to it into later editions of The Origin of Species).

Darwin explains how, given sufficient time, natural selection (or evolution, as we would say now -- Darwin didn't use this word either, though the very last word in his book is the verb form of it, "evolve") can cause varieties to develop within a particular species, and how these varieties can eventually differentiate into separate species (he points out that in his day there were many cases where naturalists, i.e., biologists, couldn't agree whether a particular form was a variety or a species -- a situation that still arises often today -- illustrating that species are simply more clearly defined varieties). He shows that natural selection can even create such specialized organs as wings or eyes, though he acknowledges that this is counter-intuitive, saying "to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances..., could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But, as he explains, what seems impossible at a glance can be shown to be very much possible.

Darwin then goes on to discuss the geological record, which as he points out is very incomplete and therefore cannot be expected to show every step in the evolutionary process. What it does show, however, tends to support his theory. He also spends two chapters discussing geographic distribution, including issues such as how two widely separated areas can end up with the same species living in them, how various plants could have been transported to islands (he did a number of experiments with seeds showing that many of them can survive for long periods in salt water), and so forth.

Finally he talks about how groupings of different species and morphology provide evidence for evolution. For example, the reason different kinds of felines (lions, tigers, and other cats) are similar in many ways, having particular features in common, is because they are in fact related to each other. He makes the point that a given modern species will not be descended from any other related modern species, but the two will have a common ancestor, one which will be in a certain sense intermediate between the two, but not exactly intermediate, just as a grandparent of two cousins will have certain features that both cousins have inherited, some that were inherited by only one, and others that neither has. This is why people who think that evolution means humans "descended from apes" have clearly failed to grasp the concept. People are not descended from any of the modern apes; rather, we all have a common ancestor, one which in some ways resembled apes, in other ways resembled humans, but in yet others neither (it is worth noting, however, that in The Origin of Species Darwin does not talk about humans, simply leaving readers to draw their own conclusions about what his theory means for human origins -- though he did address the subject in a later book).

As mentioned above, Darwin does a good job of anticipating objections to his theory and explaining why they are not fatal to it, as well as showing that his theory is the best explanation for many of the things we observe in nature. He spends little time attacking the traditional view, except for a pointed passage in the final chapter, which he concludes by saying "although naturalists very properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider reverent silence." As he says, this refusal to even discuss the details of their own ideas is not scientific: "it is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact." As The Origin of Species clearly shows, natural selection is the only theory that provides a real explanation for why life on Earth exists in the forms that it does, a fact that is if anything even more true today than it was in Darwin's time.

One minor quibble I had with the book had nothing to do with the content, and may not even have been Darwin's fault, namely the excessive use of commas. There are many commas that obviously don't belong, particularly before restrictive clauses. I don't know if Darwin himself put them there (perhaps people tended to use more commas in his day?) or if it is a problem with the particular edition that I read. However, this takes nothing from the value of the work as a whole.

While I wouldn't necessary recommend The Origin of Species to anyone who is looking for an entertaining read, I would certainly recommend it to anyone who wants a fuller understanding of the theory of evolution, or to anyone who is interested reading a master work in the history of science. By all accounts, this is probably the most accessible of all the great, revolutionary science books, certainly more so than books like Isaac Newton's Prinicipia Mathematica, which is said to be almost unintelligible to all but a few. Certainly anyone who presumes to attack Darwin and his theory should at least make the effort to understand what he actually said, though as he himself stated, people with preconceived notions about such things are not likely to be swayed by any arguments, no matter how rational or how clearly in accordance with the facts they are.

The Fate of Health Care Reform and Corporate Elections

The big political news in the past week was the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate. Because the loss of the seat held by Teddy Kennedy means the loss of the Democrats' supermajority, there has been endless analysis, discussion, spin, etc. on what the election means in terms of the electorate's attitude towards the Democrats, the Republicans, and Obama; the fate of Obama's agenda, and most particularly, the fate of health care reform. As far as the overall "meaning" of the election, as usual I think some people may be reading too much into it. Sure, it's not a particularly good sign when a Republican wins in a place like Massachusetts, but it's not like they never win state-wide races there (Mitt Romney was their governor), and Brown, while definitely to the right of the average person in Massachusetts, is not as conservative as most Republicans. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate ran a rather bad campaign, to put it mildly, not even bothering to do much campaigning until it was too late. And the economy probably had as much to do with the result as anything, though of course the Republicans are at least as much to blame for that as the Democrats (perhaps the ultimate problem was, as usual, a intellectually-challenged electorate -- though that's not to say that the Democrats are such a brilliant choice, particularly this one).

However, there is no question that this result is damaging as far as the President's agenda. As far as health care reform goes, things are looking fairly bleak. But the problems for health care reform didn't start with this election. In fact, though bills were passed by both the House and Senate, neither of them was a particularly good one. I am not entirely convinced that what has been passed so far would be better than nothing at all, especially in the case of the Senate bill, which lacks even a weak public option. As for the House bill, though it is clearly superior to the Senate bill, the restrictions on abortion spending are a bit much to swallow, and the public option is about as weak as it could be. Now things are even worse, as one of the few options open to the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, to eliminate the need for another Senate vote that the Republicans with the addition of Brown can block. Then Americans would be stuck with the Senate bill, under which people will be required to buy insurance from the monopolistic private insurance companies that have helped block more substantial reform, without even an expansion of Medicare. Another option might be to use reconciliation to pass a modified bill in the Senate, but that may involve some political risks. Yet another possibility that some have considered is to pass a scaled down reform bill containing only provisions that even Republicans will find it hard to oppose (though they might oppose such a bill just for the sake of obstructing Obama). Finally, the Democrats could just give up, though that's not really much of an option either, considering how much political capital they and Obama have already spent (wasted?) on this issue.

I'm still not sure what I'd prefer to see happen myself. As I said, I'm not sure that the current bills are better than nothing. If passing the Senate bill was the only choice, I'd be tempted to say forget the whole thing, except for the possible damage to other parts of Obama's agenda, particularly the even more vital climate change legislation. Perhaps the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made was trying to compromise too much in an effort to get even a small amount of Republican support. The problem with trying to be bipartisan is that it takes two to tango, so to speak. The Republicans are clearly not interested in compromise on health care or most other issues, so there's not much point in compromising. That's not to say that the Democrats should be openly partisan (for that matter, some in their own party have caused problems as well). But Obama sometimes needs to just come out and say what the bottom line is, explain why (not that many people will really listen to actual logic) and simply ask all like-minded legislators to support his ideas, regardless of party. If no Republicans go along, so be it.

The other big story in American politics recently is the Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictions on corporate spending in elections, a ruling that has been widely decried, with critics including Obama himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_campaign_finance). Like so many other important cases in recent times, the ruling came in a 5-4 split, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote (in this particular case on the conservative side). As pointed out in one article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals), liberal critics have in this case complained of judicial activism, a common complaint made by conservative critics against liberal rulings. A more telling criticism of Scalia, Roberts, et al. would be blatant hypocrisy, as it is the conservative judges who talk so much about the need for judicial restraint, strict-constructionism, and so on. Roberts actually attempted to deflect such criticisms by asserting that a failure to rule as they did would have been "judicial abdication". So no doubt he believes that the so-called Founding Fathers that strict constructionists like himself hold in such high esteem would have whole-heartedly approved of his ruling giving corporations more power in elections. Perhaps we can get something of a clue from this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816

One of the biggest absurdities here is the assertion that corporations should be treated as persons and therefore their political speech should be protected. Granted, at least one commentator made some good points defending the ruling: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/ . However, while I agree that corporations already have so much power in American "democracy" that this may not really add much to that power, that there are definite problems with the loopholes in the laws, and that there are some risks inherent in any restrictions on political speech, in the end I still think the ruling is indefensible. I am dubious about the idea that the laws in place substantially restricted groups like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, if nothing else because these kinds of groups would never have the money to spend on advertising for or against individual candidates. Any money that they have for public relations is spent advocating their causes in a more general way (and not with television ads, generally, as they can't afford them). The groups most likely to benefit from this ruling are the ones mentioned in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis;_ylt=ArfHb.MZns4sneNX8XhtmGhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoajBnNG1sBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfYW5hbHlzaXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXN3aWxs , with the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has spent much of its recent efforts in opposing climate change legislation, in defiance of many of its own members) being particularly menacing examples. Of course the point that under rule of law we can't argue the constitutionality of a law based on its perceived positive or negative effects remains valid. But the real problem, of course, is the idea of corporate personhood. The concept makes sense if we are discussing the ability to sue or be sued in court, but when it comes to rights which were obviously intended for individuals (i.e., actual people), such as the right to be tried a jury of their peers, the right to vote, freedom of religion, and the right to free speech, the idea that corporations should also freely enjoy such rights is absurd.

Haiti and Google

The big news of the week, of course, is the earthquake in Haiti. A big earthquake is always a terrible thing, but when it happens in a place like Haiti, it is even worse. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. Its people have high illiteracy rates and low life expectancies, and there is a high level of infant mortality. The country has poor infrastructure and suffers from political instability. How its people are going to be able to cope with a disaster like this, I have no idea.

Of course the rest of the world has to do what it can. I have to admit that I haven't made any contributions yet myself, but I hope to do so soon, after I decide where it will do the most good. This is a tricky question, as there are lots of organizations taking donations, but it's hard to be sure which will make the most efficient use of them. This is is especially important in a place like Haiti, where all sorts of difficulties stand in the way of using money efficiently. A good local organization might be best, or else an international one with a long-time presence in the country, as they will have a clearer idea of what people need.

Unfortunately, a few people on the lunatic fringe have already managed to make absurd, insensitive and downright warped comments on the disaster. Of course I'm referring here to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If we are going to drag history into things, Pat, why not talk about how when the slaves revolted in Haiti and actually succeeded (the Haitian Revolution is often cited as the only successful slave rebellion in history), the US reacted by restricting trade with the new nation, partly because of racism and a fear among Southerners that their slaves might try to emulate the Haitians, thus helping ensure that Haiti got off to a bad start from which it never really recovered? Of course it had many other problems ("a pact with the devil", despite Robertson's absurd claims, was not one of them), but an unfriendly US certainly did not help, so the US has in some ways a special obligation to help. As for Limbaugh, his cynicism and insensitivity is just disgusting. What does he expect Obama to do, ignore the Haitians because he's afraid he might be seen as trying to score political points? He certainly can't do anything that's likely to please Limbaugh and his ilk. The suggestion (made either by Limbaugh or some other nutcase) that there was something wrong with Obama immediately holding a press conference about Haiti (where tens of thousands may have died, and hundreds of thousands will be in need of help) when he waited a few days to make a statement on the failed terrorist attack (which killed nobody) is absurd and shows a completely lack of any sense of proportion, or indeed any sense at all (and it's worth mentioning that it took Bush several days to comment on the shoe bomber whose failed attack was quite similar to this one). Even worse than his own politicization of the disaster, Limbaugh seemed to discourage donations to Haiti with his comment that Americans already gave money to Haiti by means of their income tax (presumably referring to US foreign aid to Haiti, which in fact is a tiny part of the federal budget). Fortunately, the only people likely to actually listen to Limbaugh are the selfish, xenophobic and racist types who wouldn't be willing to do anything for the Haitians anyway.

Another interesting piece of news recently was Google's threat to quit China. While some have pointed out that they should have stood up against Chinese censorship a long time ago, I'd say it's better late than never. Of course now they've got to follow through on the threat (unless the Chinese government backs down -- a very unlikely scenario). It is unfortunate for the Chinese that if Google pulls out they will be even more completely at the mercy of the government censors, but given the degree to which companies like Google were being forced to compromise in order to operate in China, I don't think their presence was really doing much good. It remains to be seen if other companies with more complicated investments in China will follow Google's lead (Yahoo issued a statement indicating support for Google's position without actually committing to act in the same way, and even that was criticized by their Chinese partner Alibaba).

Update - Here's a recent article that talks about France's historical responsibility for Haiti's poverty and also mentions the US's role in making Haiti the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake

Reid, Obama and Race

Once again, I'd like to briefly address a should-be-a-non-issue issue, in this case the revelation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once referred to Obama as "light-skinned" and said he didn't have a "Negro dialect", with the further implication that these facts made him more electable. Republicans and other public figures have denounced Reid's comments as racist and though Reid has apologized and Obama himself has dismissed the matter, some have called for Reid to resign. Republicans have accused the Democrats of hypocrisy, comparing their muted reaction to Reid's remarks to their strong criticism of former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond.

I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Reid myself. For one thing, his efforts on behalf of the public option as part of health care reform were half-hearted at best. But while some might object to his use of the old-fashioned term Negro, all of what he said was true. What is worth discussing is why it is true, and what can be done to change it. While racism against African-Americans in general has not disappeared, despite Obama's election, it is also clearly the case that darker-skinned African-Americans with a more pronounced dialect (though it seems some dislike this term too, it is the correct one linguistically speaking) are more likely to be discriminated against. This is not by any means a new phenomenon, either, ultimately going back to the days of slavery. Back in the 1950s, blues singer Big Bill Broonzy commented on it in his song "Get Back - Black, Brown, and White", with the lines "If you's white, it's alright, if you's brown, stick around, but if you's black, oh, brother, get back, get back, get back."

The comparison to the Trent Lott case is far-fetched. In Lott's case, he expressed regret that South Carolina's long-term Senator Strom Thurmond failed in his 1948 presidential bid. This was an issue because Thurmond ran specifically as a segregationist, so Lott's comments were naturally interpreted as condoning segregation (a side note: the Daily Show's America textbook has a picture of Thurmond in the midst of his record-length filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, with the caption "The leading segregationist of his day, Thrumond's racist rhetoric so appalled the state of South Carolina that it reelected him to the Senate seven times"). Lott denied this, stating that, to his knowledge, Thurmond had renounced his segregationist views (though not all would accept that claim) and that he only said that Thurmond should have been president to make the old man happy (the occasion was Thurmond's 100th birthday party). In fairness to Lott, it is certainly possible that he really did not intend to condone segregation (though he is on record as making indisputably homophobic remarks), but nevertheless his remarks did (even if unintentionally) imply as much, so there can be no comparison with Reid's remarks, which did not in any way imply support for racism, just an acknowledgement of its existence.

Here's a piece on the web which makes essentially the same points: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1985462,CST-NWS-mitch12.article , and another which discusses the accuracy of Reid's remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-harry-reids-racial-remarks-truth-studies-critics/story?id=9535416&page=2

This whole brouhaha does remind me of a problem that has bugged me a little in the past, though in some ways I'm afraid even mentioning it might be taken by some the wrong way. That problem is how we define people as African-American. As most people know, the majority of African-Americans don't have purely African ancestry. Most of them have at least some European (white) ancestry as well. My question is, why do we still define people who evidently are no more than half African in ancestry as African-American or as "black"? Should Colin Powell, for instance, be considered African-American or European-American? In truth, he is clearly both, but generally he is labelled as African-American. Obama, of course, is biracial, being the son of a European-American (white) mother and an African father. His racial identity is often accurately given as biracial, but if he is identified as belonging to either race, he is always identified as African-American or black, never as European-American or white. Tiger Woods, who is also biracial, though in his case his other primary ancestry is Asian, was even criticized by some in the black community for emphasizing that he didn't consider himself exclusively African-American but also Asian-American.

This is all a bit ironic, given that it was the racist whites in the 19th century who established the "rule" that a person who had even a discernible amount of black ancestry should be considered black. While I'm certainly not saying that white people should attempt to "claim" Obama or Colin Powell or Douglas Wilder as one of their own, it doesn't seem logical to categorically label them as exclusively African-American either. They are biracial or of mixed race. Of course, to some degree, everyone is of mixed race. I recently learned that one of my own distant ancestors was probably partly of African descent, though that is so far back that if it is true I would still be less than 1% black. For that matter, though, if you go far enough back, everyone is of African ancestry, as that's where the human race came from. This all goes to prove that race shouldn't really matter, except as a neutral way to describe someone, like tall or short. Unfortunately, it still does matter, and until all African-Americans and other minorities can get completely equal treatment, we still have work to do.

While racism remains an important issue (as is discrimination in general, the problem at issue in the current Prop 8 trial), Reid's remarks in and of themselves don't deserve all the attention they are getting. For an issue that is not getting as much attention but is ultimately much more important, the following opinion piece is informative: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-youn10-2010jan10,0,1203910.story . Hopefully people will start paying more attention to this issue rather than what Reid said, so maybe something can be done to prevent the US from becoming even more of a pawn of big business than it already is.