Category Archives: Ethics

What Faith Sanctions Instant, No-Effort Forgiveness? Only Pop Religion

Christianity, Ethics, Journalism, Judaism & Jews, Morality

Of the banal New York Times columnist David Brooks it has been said that he is “the sort of conservative pundit that liberals like.” Not being a conservative (or a left-liberal), I find him consistently wishy–washy and inane. There is not a controversial or interesting thought in that head of his.

True to type, Brooks gushes banalities about NBC’s Brian Williams. Suspended for six months, the iconic managing editor and anchor of NBC Nightly News, it would appear, lied a lot about the events he covered during his limelight-seeking career.

Although it comes close, Brooks’ latest, “Act of Rigorous Forgiving,” is not a complete dog’s breakfast of a column. The aspect of the Brooks column that piqued this scribe’s curiosity is that of forgiveness.

But first, “Williams’ troubles,” as chronicled by The Daily Beast, “began with his false account of a March 2003 helicopter ride during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which he told, with dramatic variations, on David Letterman’s late-night talk show and Alec Baldwin’s radio show in March 2013, and repeated on his own Jan. 30 newscast—only to recant it and apologize five days later after Stars and Stripes blew it out of the sky. Now he’s also facing scrutiny for stories of possibly untrue exploits during his 2005 coverage of Hurricane Katrina, and even whether, as a volunteer teenage firefighter in Middletown, New Jersey, he saved one (or maybe it was two) puppies from a burning house.”

Brooks’ trouble is that the public has not even received a full account of Williams’ transgressions. Yet Brooks has shifted to a discussion of forgiveness. Is this not premature? Brooks, moreover, is preachy and sanctimonious—almost as though writing with himself in mind (along the lines of, “What if the Williams fate befalls me?”). Brooks is also plain wrong. He claims that transgressors are treated barbarically when they “violate a public trust.” Nonsense on stilts. In a culture steeped in moral relativism, this is simply untrue. Paris Hilton debuted her public life with a self-adoring pornographic video. It only increased her profile. Likewise Kim Kardashian, who has been bottoms-up ever since that maiden performance. Her sister, almost as bad, has visited the White House. Barack Obama lied intentionally when he vowed, “You can keep your healthcare if you want to,” but all was forgiven and forgotten. Ditto Genghis Bush on the matter of WMD. On and on.

In any event, boilerplate Brooks is tempered by some good points about the necessity to perform penitence before being granted clemency:

… the offender has to get out in front of the process, being more self-critical than anyone else around him. He has to probe down to the root of his error, offer a confession more complete than expected. He has to put public reputation and career on the back burner and come up with a course that will move him toward his own emotional and spiritual recovery, to become strongest in the weakest places.

… It’s also an occasion to investigate each unique circumstance, the nature of each sin that was committed and the implied remedy to that sin. Some sins, like anger and lust, are like wild beasts. They have to be fought through habits of restraint. Some sins like bigotry are like stains. They can only be expunged by apology and cleansing. Some like stealing are like a debt. They can only be rectified by repaying. Some, like adultery, are more like treason than like crime; they can only be rectified by slowly reweaving relationships. Some sins like vanity — Williams’s sin — can only be treated by extreme self-abasement.

Indeed penitence, especially in the case of a sustained pattern of abuse, can “only be [achieved] by slowly reweaving relationships.”

To simply demand forgiveness because one has said sorry without convincingly and consistently acting sorry, and to proceed further to conduct one’s self like a victim because the victim has failed to extend an instant pardon: This is despicable. To shift the guilt onto the injured party for not granting that minute-made (or is it “minute-maid”?) clemency: That too is beyond the pale.

Jews too, it would appear, have moved into the realm of pop religion. “According to the Talmud,” I was recently instructed, “a person who repents is forgiven his past and stands in a place of righteousness.”

No mention was made of the hard, lengthy work of “slowly reweaving relationships.” The demand was for forgiveness in a New York minute.

My guess is that instant expiation flows more from the values of the 1960s than from any doctrinal Christian or Jewish values. Whichever is the case, the corollary of the current practice of no-effort forgiveness is that “it not only abolishes the necessity of repentance; it abolishes sin itself,” to quote Ted and Virginia Byfield.

Too Earnest, Too Attractive, Too Macho, Too Moneyed, Too White, Too Christian

Elections, Ethics, Republicans

“Romney’s repeal-and-replace statism was irreconcilable with this writer’s libertarianism. … Romney was wrong on China. Wrong on Iran. Wrong on Russia. Wrong on Foreign policy, in general. Wrong on almost everything. Yet as incongruous as this may seem, Mitt Romney is a fine man—a man with great personal virtues, if profound flaws in political philosophy. Ann Romney, herself a delightful lady, is a lucky woman. Romney is a great provider, is fabulously devoted to family and faith, is consistently generous and charitable to all those around him, and brilliant in all endeavors, academic and entrepreneurial. … Unlike Obama’s university transcripts, Romney’s would have stood up to the scrutiny that never came.” (From “No Country For Old, White Men.”)

And whatever you think of him, Romney is still doing what he believes is best for the country he loves.

According to National Journal, despite bowing out of the 2016 race to rule, Mitt “Romney’s push forward had been his belief, … that other establishment candidates—Bush, Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio—aren’t up to snuff. But his Friday remarks indicate that he thinks his presence in the race would be more damaging to his goal of electing ‘a conservative leader to become our next president.'”

Romney is right about the rest of the Republicans in the 2016 race to rule; they’re a repulsive lot.

More about Romney the man:

… Money was Mitt’s Mark of Cain. So were his wicked work ethic and whiteness.

Romney was booed when he wooed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Enough to provoke the ire of blacks, Latinos, ladies of all hues, the halt and the lame was the mere hint that the too-white-to-like Romney would slow down the gravy train.

Lickspittle Republicans were as eager as the Democratic representatives of these identity groups to lambaste Mr. Romney for being too attractive, too macho, too white, too Christian, and too rich. No one could have failed to notice that Mitt Romney resembles the “Mad Man” played by Jon Hamm, in the eponymous AMC series. Both men are tall, dark and handsome, with the kind of picture-perfect, quintessential American good looks. Both hide their feelings and are spare with their emotions. When they show their softer side–it actually means something. Each is dutiful and dependable.

Such qualities, once considered desirable in a man, now offend the dominatrixes who run the nation’s newsrooms. “He’s a very private man; and that’s a liability.” “How can you get me to vote for him, if I don’t like him?” “He needs to humanize himself.” And, “Can he [even] be humanized?” demanded one CNN ghoul by the name of Gloria Borger on the eve of Halloween. Mitt Romney was inhuman: That, very plainly, was the premise of this harridan’s rhetorical question.

“Ann Romney’s job, and she’s been pushing for this in the campaign, is to kind of humanize him,” noodled the banal Ms. Borger over and over again, for the campaign’s duration.

This was the menstrually inspired miasma that emanated from TV studios countrywide.

Thus did Mitt Romney come to embody elements in Aristotle’s definition of a tragic figure:

* The “tragic hero is of noble birth and displays a nobility of spirit.” (Check)
* The character must be a person of stature. (Check)
* The protagonist is pitted against forces beyond their control. (Check)
* The character must be neither totally good nor totally evil.
* An error of judgment or a weakness in character causes the misfortune. (Check)
* The character must be responsible for tragic events. (Check: Romney’s failures ushered in four more years of epochal evil.)
* His action involves a change in fortune from happiness to misery. (Check)
* Subject is serious. (Check)
* He struggles courageously until his fall. (Check)
* Though defeated, he gains a measure of increased wisdom.

Mr. Romney’s pathos-filled election concession speech crystallized these tragic elements.

We “left everything on the field,” he said. “We have given our all to this campaign.”

Indeed, the prototypical Greek tragic figure “struggles courageously until his fall.” …

MORE.

Celebrity Journos Green Over GloZell Green

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Ethics, Journalism, Media, Morality

Lamestream media is furious that President Barack Obama has granted interviews not to their own—to the likes of fancy pants Megyn Kelly, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper or Rachel Mad Cow. Oh no. Knowing full-well that he presides over an Idiocracy—how else did he get elected?—the president has always made an effort to get in touch with idiots. (Interviewer Hank Green is not an idiot.) This time, it’s three YouTube “content creators,” as people who suction their faces and body parts to an internet camera are known.

I’m enjoying the whining of Kelly and company about Obama doing damage to the dignity of The Office. What dignity??!!

Other than their airs and graces, celebrity journos are not that different from the freaks of YouTube. (The Green kid is an exception; he seems to be doing a good job of it.) They’re narcissists, who live not for the truth, but for a seat at the Annual White House Sycophant’s Supper, or alongside the smarmy, unfunny Jon Stewart, or next to the vaginas of The View.

Bill O’Reilly or Bethany Mota: The number of hits, the ratings and the invitations; that’s what this lot lives for.

The new journalism:

Hank Green — One of the main voices in YouTube’s vibrant education community, Hank and his brother John produce content on a variety of topics, ranging from science to the environment to current events.
Bethany Mota — An iconic young millenial creator, Bethany connects with her subscribers around life as a young woman growing up in America.
GloZell Green — The most-followed African American woman on YouTube, GloZell engages her audience in conversations about topics such as music, popular culture, and current events.

UPDATED: Slow! Critters Crossing

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics

A delightful little opossum graced us with a visit the other day. Opossums are shy, nocturnal creatures, so it was indeed a treat to watch him and snap him drinking from the bird bath. My mother’s was the keen little eye that spied him.

Sadly, while out for a constitutional, I spotted the little guy. “When attacked by predators, opossums ‘play dead’ or ‘play possum’ by collapsing and lying still.” This little critter, however, was dead; roadkill of a careless driver. Probably a speeding kid.

Signs that read “Slow: [bloody, rude] kids crossing” are everywhere around the neighborhood.

These gentle critters deserve the same consideration.

UPDATE: In reply to the Facebook thread:

Fred, I hardly think that these sloth-like, slow and shy Marsupials can by their nature do the damage you describe. Sounds like nonsense on stilts. You must mean racoons; they are aggressive and quick to pounce. The creature that wreaks the most havoc on little critters in the wild is the common household cat: voles, shrews, birds: they don’t stand a chance. I recall once reading a study in Scientific American, I think (but unsure) about the eradication of small species by cats, feral and other.