Missing what’s in front of you
The Atlantic has a short piece discussing an emerging technology: a kind of virtual heads-up display that overlays virtual data on one’s real surroundings via iphone or, later, eyeglasses.
Jamais Cascio argues that this technology will be used to further the group sorting effects seen now by cable news channels or purchases of political groups — one day, it may be possible to program technology to physically prevent one from seeing dissenting viewpoints.
-John
Separation of church and state = more church
A number of sociologists have argued that the separation of church and state in America helps explain why the United States is a more religious country than most other Western liberal democracies. The latest turn in this story from Georgia would seem to back up that hypothesis. Until last month, cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School painted banners with New Testament verses. But after a parent warned the school district of the potential First Amendment infringement, the school stopped the practice. This has prompted fans of the team to come to games with their own religious signs and shirts. The separation of church and state was not intended to stifle religious practice, but its opposite effect is quite interesting.
-Marc
The naked truth about freedom
Should the government stop people from walking around home in the buff?
Public nudity became a topic of conversation worldwide last week when a 29-year-old Fairfax, Virginia man was arrested for indecent exposure after a mother walking with her child reported that he was naked and visible through the windows of his house. She claims he purposely exposed himself to them; he claims he was just making coffee and didn’t realize anyone could see.
Legally, what matters is intent, as the Washington Post article (admirably) discusses: “lawyers say the case…will probably boil down to a crucial question: Did Williamson intend to be seen?…It’s not the exposure itself that makes it indecent. There has to be some kind of obscene intent.”
Morally, not surprisingly, it depends. Read more
Homo Religiosus
Karen Armstrong has an article on God in Foreign Policy. She suggests that the “New Atheists” (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al) have got it wrong:
These writers are wrong — not only about religion, but also about politics — because they are wrong about human nature. Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.
Two problems: Must “meaning-seeking” necessary entail “religious”?
And, is “As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions” really a reasonable interpretation of history? With introductory claims like these, any foreign policy implications become even more murky.
- Colin
Augusta rules
Does it matter who hits the links with the President?
In a town always in search of a news story, it should perhaps come as little surprise that newspapers have been eager to report that Melody Barnes, the President’s top domestic policy adviser, yesterday became the first woman to golf with Obama since the inauguration.
The now famous golf round did not come before some controversy. The President recently hosted a basketball game with male Cabinet members and Members of Congress–none female. The “boys club” speculation erupted almost immediately.
Is gender equality at stake in the composition of the President’s sporting crowd?
Irving Kristol, from left to right
Nathan Glazer, Irving Kristol’s co-editor at Commentary, writes an interesting TNR piece on Kristol and the history of neoconservatism.
-Jake
The American public and Afghanistan
Political judgement
With Shalev Roisman, I published an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor on the role domestic support should play in Pres. Obama’s pending decision on whether to escalate in Afghanistan.
The main argument raises questions about the obligations of democratically elected leaders:
The Ethics of Photoshop
False advertising and beauty
The Ethicist (Randy Cohen) at The New York Times takes a look at the recent Ralph Lauren controversy. Two advertisements featuring women who appear so thin as to seem otherworldly have surfaced and caused quite a stir, prompting the company itself to issue the following apology:
After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately.
Pictures of models in print media and on our television screens are routinely altered, and if we account for the professional makeup, hair styling, lighting, and other “special effects,” we would have to admit that there are numerous layers of illusion in beauty-based advertising. But unlike cereal, these ads don’t require an “Enhanced to show texture” disclaimer. At least not yet.
Uh oh
If not even political science is relevant anymore, then we’re really in trouble.
-Sam
Is Fatism justified?
Part 1
Jon Corzine, incumbent governor of New Jersey, recently ran an ad not so subtly mocking his opponents ample weight. This has provoked commentary discussing whether discrimination against the overweight is qualitatively different than other kinds of discrimination which society generally opposes, or whether “fatism” is simply the latest in our society’s track record of morally reprehensible “isms” to be overcome.
To start thinking through this question it’s worth pointing out that fatism shares some of the same qualifying characteristics as other, less acceptable isms.
- Science continues to reveal that much of the cause of obesity is genetic. While weight can be controlled or reduced, for a high percentage of those overweight their natural weight is simply above average (of course this does not explain the rapid increase in obesity over the last few decades)
- Being overweight makes one the victim of societal prejudice – most concretely, the obese make less money
- Like race, obesity is tightly correlated with poverty
In many ways, fatism looks like homophobia ten years ago. Homophobics then claimed that homosexuality was a a learned and chosen behavior, one that could be reversed (with dire and very sad psychological consequences). However, as scientific evidence continued to pile up and enter the mainstream consciousness, anti-gay attitudes dropped and are likely to continue to do so since the young are much more gay-friendly than the old.
Slate published an article charting the rise of a distinct “fat rights” movement, one that has both political action groups and it’s very own academic specialty. The response, predictably, has been very much negative, seeing fatness as a personal weakness or a symptom of a broken consumer culture.
The critical question may just be whether being overweight is, to be blunt, bad for society. Ultimately racism etc were and are doomed to failure not simply for philosophical and ethical reasons but because members of every oppressed group have proven their equality as excellent citizens and people. (There is a strong correlation between tolerant attitudes towards homosexuality and simply knowing a gay person). There is simply no downside to a world with racial equality. However, there are significant costs to be born by an overweight society, primarily vast medical expenditures. There is a utilitarian argument to be made for fatism. I’ll examine this argument in the coming week.
-John
Share us