How do we respond to the death of OBL?

The day after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I was surprised and saddened to see just how many people not only took no joy in the news - but actually took it upon themselves to condemn anyone who viewed his death as good news. Some were simply killjoys - people who took great pleasure in robbing others of happiness - but some were truly thoughtful people struggling with the situation. Religious leaders were equally split this weekend, as they tried to teach their congregants how to react to death of this mass-murderer.

My own read is simple. It is appropriate to rejoice in justice done - especially for those of us in the NYC area who were closest to 9/11 and knew those who died. But it is also appropriate to mourn at the necessity of killing, and at the fact that he will now never have a chance to repent.

Are heroes born or made?

In the wake of Japan's earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear failures, we're seeing that every culture and age has its heroes. It raises the question of how societies produce heroes. Are heroes the product of some genetic anomaly or is heroism something that is taught?

Heroism and compassion are not genetic traits, says sociologist Christine Carter.
As part of her online parenting class at raisinghappiness.org, Carter teaches parents how to raise children to become heroes.
“Kids are more likely to intervene in a situation if they believe their parents expect them to help,” Carter says. “Speaking out when someone is cheating or being bullied in the schoolyard — these are situations when someone decides not to be a bystander. That’s part of the heroic imagination, teaching children there is often a time when they know something bad is going to happen before it happens,” Carter says.

Removing the Moral Dilemma to Stem Cells

When George W. Bush announced a freeze on Federal support for Stem Cell research in 2000, he was roundly condemned by the medical establishment who accused him of "wanting Alzheimer's patients to suffer." But at the time, Pro-life advocates were already pointing to sources of stem cells which did not require the death of an embryo - fetal cord blood, for example. Now, scientists have announced they have found a way to produce stem cells without embryo death from any patient! A mere 8 years - when added to a little political pressure - was enough to completely free the way for future stem cell experimentation.

In a breakthrough that could have huge implications, British and Canadian scientists have found a way of reprogramming skin cells taken from adults, effectively winding the clock back on the cells until they were in an embryonic form...

Because the cells can be made from a patient's own skin, they carry the same DNA and so could be used without a risk of being rejected by the immune system.

So, not only is it a morally-defensible solution for Pro-Lifers, it is actually a better solution medically because it uses the patient's own cells and obviates the need for anti-rejection drugs (which suppress the immune system in general). In my ever-so-humble opinion, this justifies GWB's decision from 8 years back.

Why ethicists needs to watch Star Trek

I have gotten grief over the years for my enjoyment of science fiction. Many see it as an art form devoid of maturity, suitable only for adolescent boys seeking wish fulfillment. But the fact is that science fiction is the story form of the moral dilemma. It allows one to put a character into extreme situations where ethics are pushed to their limit, and it works out the proper course of action. From 1984 to Star Trek (Guardian on the Edge of Forever) to The Matrix, it helps us to find the edges of our morality and find the human answers to hard questions.

The reason I bring this up is a new report from the American College of Chest Physicians which attempts to figure out how to properly triage patients during a worldwide pandemic. In an attempt to provide objective, universal guidelines, they have laid out an Orwellian nightmare where doctors are choosing which of us have more or less value. The old, the handicapped, and those with mental diseases are to be put to the bottom of the list. Is it reassuring to know that John McCain (old man), FDR (paralyzed from the waist down), and Abe Lincoln (extreme, crippling depressioN) might be left to die under these guidelines?

But science fiction has crossed this rubicon many times, in many different short stories, novels, television shows, and movies. The real human method of triage is simple and the same one used in battlefields all over the world. Treat the patient LEAST likely to die first, then the next, and so on. The only judgement required here is medical in nature, not ethical, and thus no doctor or medic is forced to make the impossible choices of whether a retarded boy, an old woman, or a seriously injured soldier is more "worthy" of treatment. The only question to ask is, "Who am I mostly likely to be able to save.

We need to send these people the DVDs to Firefly. Seriously.

The complex morality of a sub-prime mortgage world

I have really been enjoying the reading over at The Consumerist over the last few weeks. It is a blog dedicated to consumer issues like bad customer service, extended warranties, and the like. Today, it has up an interesting article on the complex decisions facing a sub-prime mortgage home-owner as they face the choice of paying the mortgage and seeing the money lost as the house value drops, or not paying the mortgage and saving the money for themselves (knowing foreclosure is inevitable).

Sinclair: We went through months of being skinflints, because we knew that we were going into the red, so we didn't buy anything. All the sudden, we had a bank full of money and we're living rent-free, but we know that's not really our money.

Vigeland: How does that feel?

Esmeralda Sinclair: Great! Like he said, we were so tight with money...

Dan: It does feel great, because all the sudden, we feel like we have a little margin now where we can go out to dinner, get a babysitter...

Vigeland: But you're not paying your mortgage. You're not paying the biggest obligation you have. How does that feel good?

Esmeralda: We already went through the guilt. This is really what we need to do, not what we wanted to do, but what we need to do.

These are the situations where morality and law are more interesting. Are these people better off paying their mortgage in order to honor their contract, or NOT paying in order to have equity for their lives and children when their time runs out? Or is their bank better off declaring some kind of "mortgage payment holiday" in hopes that eventually they will come around and start paying again? Or at this point, have things gone too far to come back?

Hillary has already sold her donor lists for cash

There are a LOT of reasons why I have chosen not to give any money to the Hillary Clinton Campaign. (Primary being, I do NOT want her to be president.) But even if I did not have those reasons this story would keep me from giving her any money.

Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.

It was an unusual transaction, according to Roger Craver, a liberal guru of the political direct-mail industry.

"As a general rule, a campaign will not let its donor list out into the markets until the campaign is over," he said. "This is the mother's milk of small-gift fundraising, and they use these lists frequently."

There are no records that any other presidential candidates rented out mailing lists last year.

I know that it is not unusual for campaigns to give their lists to the national party, and I guess it makes sense for future fundraising. But in general this really seems like a bad idea, and an easy way to make donations dry up quickly. I can't help wondering if these revelations might wind up being the last nail in the coffin for Hillary's presidential hopes.

Why are Republicans facing minority status in all branches of government?

George Will believes it all comes back to ethics and earmarks, and the fact that the Republican majority failed to control its more pork-hungry impulses.

In his State of the Union address, the president vowed to veto any appropriation bill "that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half." Coburn tartly notes that although Congress hardly needs 5,500 earmarks -- half of last year's total -- the president's goal would be met if Republicans themselves quit earmarking. That fact goes far to explain the Republicans' current and future minority status.