Chomsky Q&A..and the worst question ever asked!

by C.E.Morris

On 11/22/2013 I went to the Premiere of Michel Gondry’s documentary Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?  The film is a dense exploration of life, logic anxd linguistics with MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky. Intricate pontifications of the modern day philosopher are strung together by a candid discussion of Chomsky's family, childhood and mortality. Gondry lays a kaleidoscope of old photos and animation over these conversations.

 

 In the film Noam likens his Philadelphia Public High School to a “black hole" and in other interviews and writings summarizes mainstream education as an instrument of indoctrination.  Chomsky gives the audience a vivid account of his formal education prior to the “black hole” of high school; at a “Deweyite (elementary) school” student’s creativity and critical thinking were of the utmost importance. “Deweyite Schools” is named after one of CU’s own; Professor of Philosophy John Dewey (1859-1952) who taught at CU & TC (1904-1930). Many of Chomsky’s 21^st century critiques of education, production and labor are a modern day reverberation of Dewey’s work. Historian Hilda Neatby said Dewey was “not a philosopher, but the philosopher.”

Political scientists, philosophers, libertarians, progressives and the apolitical alike would argue that Chomsky is the philosopher of our times and much of that sentiment is based off his activism and political writings (a hobby compared to his work in Linguistics).

Both Noam Chomsky and Michel Gondry were in attendance at the premier and in a Q&A after the film; I was one of two audience members fortunate enough to be called on…

—I need to pause here to emphasize that picking the brain of (arguably) the world’s foremost thinker isn’t a privilege I am often afforded. Needless to say I was nervous—

 I wanted to know how Chomsky reconciles being a leading critic of an education system that is “designed for obedience and passivity” when he himself is a leader at MIT, one of the most elite schools in that very same system. However, in fear of being rude or accusatory (neither my intention), I “kept it on the I”:

I began with a contextual irrelevancy; “I come from a blue-collar background”(why start off on the right foot when one can just shove it in their mouth?) and then divulged that I am a student at Columbia University: one of the most elite schools in the education system, or per Chomsky an “instrument” of “elitist indoctrination.” I said I often heard the argument that if I benefited from this system, I didn’t have a right to radically critique it. In other words; if I am an “elite collaborator” I cannot also be a “legitimate dissenter.” 

 The Professor gave a generously elegant answer (same as video above) )while simultaneously questioning, then correcting my word usage. I wish I could quote Chomsky verbatim but I wouldn’t do him justice. However, his concluding comment summarized his point well: "we need good people everywhere."

 I do not know if Chomsky was being charitable or not, but in a later email he said my question was a “proper concern for many people.” Botched as that question might have been, I am still happy with the answer. Click here to see Amy Goodman interview Michele Gondry (& ask him the same question about his work that i was trying to ask Chomsky). Columbia's Philosophy Department will be hosting Noam Chomsky on December 6^th at 4:15pm where his is delivering his "Dewey Lecture Series". (501 Schermerhorn)  & Michel Gondry’s documentary Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy? , is now showing in limited release and will soon be available for iTunes download.

Thank You Speech- 05/09/13 - @MCC By C.E. Morris

My name is Chris Morris and I am the Vice President of membership for PTK @ the Damon City Campus.

As a human service student I learned more about myself in my two semesters with Dr. Mullaney than I had in my previous 25 years.  Despite what some told me, Human Service Class was Anything but easy.  In fact, the work required of me in the good Doctor’s class and at my fieldwork posts were a comprehensive, analytical and introspective crash course into the world of social work, psychosocial analysis, self assessment and counseling. Not to mention logging in more than 375 hours in the field.

The reality check that was my fieldwork allowed me to bare witness to societal travesties, grotesque socioeconomic disparities, communities that seemed to be willfully forgotten and even the tragic death of a young student.

Dr. Mullaney highlighted the importance of "small victories". A skilled and professional helper can sometimes get overwhelmed by all the bureaucracy, brutality and negativity in the world.

However, as pointed out by my instructor we must not lament; for surely if we helpers do not persevere; how can we expect our clients, patients and students to.

Dr. Mullaney you placed the proverbial kindling of social responsibility at my feet. Thank you

Professor Dina Giovanelli, I observed your unapologetic stance on social justice, equality and advocacy for those most vulnerable among us, and I was inspired,.    I not only subscribe to the critical lens of the sociological perspective that you taught us, I live by it. In SOC 101 you poured the proverbial lighter fluid of social justice on that kindling previously mentioned. The Honors course “The City” then lit match of Civic Duty in side me. It is because of you that I will bring a voice of Critical theory to Columbia University. (I’ll let you know how that goes)

Joseph R. (friend) thanks for showing me, by example, there was a dignified and safe way out of my old life and that I could be successful after that life. You have done more for me than most, thank you.

Josh and Rachael Thank you for reminding me to question everything, and teaching me that just because something is the norm or the status quo, doesn’t make it natural and doesn't mean it is right.

Evan B. (friend), Thank you for taking a chance on me when no one else would.

If it weren’t for all of your (and countless others) cooperation, love and sacrifices, I would not be here today. Thank you

Most importantly I want to thank my personal hero; dedicating nearly 30 years to helping, educating and advocating for those most vulnerable among us. This person has put up with enough guff throughout the years to be granted sainthood. My mom, Lynda Morris. There is no combination of words that would do you justice, thank you for being my mother, my father, role model and for being strong when the rest of us couldn’t be. I love you.

Story by Me, Misspelled title by MCC editor

My lost love

My lost love
by C.E. Morris

As a maker, critic and lover of most music; Hip Hop is what dominates my life’s soundtrack. Memories of joyous triumphs, painful defeats and embarrassing losses playback to a score dominated by Hip Hop, or something close to it. These glimpses into the rear view mirror of life reveal moments I had long forgotten; from hiding my Doggystyle & 36 Chambers cassette tapes from my parents in the 4th grade to sneaking out my bedroom window so I could see local rap-cats battle every Wednesday night @ the brickyard on south avenue. Other rap-reminiscent-reveals I wish I could forget but cannot; like that $80 Cash money-Ruff Ryder Concert or how much my early adulthood was defined by a misguided and Literal fundamentalism; not religious but rather Gangster Rap literal interpretation-fundamentalism. Which reinforced my already malicious behavior and dog-eat-dog worldview. Please don’t misinterpret; "gangster rap” in no way birthed my malady of spirit, but rather I used the music as a perverse validation for my actions.

In the early 2000’s I ran around the city of Rochester to every corner store, bodega and open trunk sale to stay up to date with my favorite rappers (short of the very rare trickle of talent that managed to wedge themselves onto the top 100 charts). Today, rap music gushes from almost every media outlet and internet orifice in existence. From Sirius to soundcloud, from piratebay to College radio: these new outlets give a platform for local and lesser known rapper to be heard, which is a plus. However, hip hop fans can easily be "waterlogged" from this over saturation. Even on a local tip; interest, patients, money and time can be lost while attempting to navigate the crowded murkiness of todays “rap scene”.

My relationship with hip hop has been similar to a bite by that bittersweet 4 letter L word. That is to say Hip Hop and I have that love/hate duality.. There is a lot to love in Hip Hop and Rap. There was an abundance of hope, excitement and positivity that filled the hip hop airwaves in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Some of those traditions are carried on through socially conscious rappers like immortal technique, dead prez and the roots. But these artist are few and far in-between At first formally suppressed voices were being heard for the first time and a new consciousness was laying down the roadwork that new bridges would be built on. Bringing narratives of raw, gritty, head bobbin', bass droppin’ reality, social awareness and sincerity. Hip Hop was, and in some instances still is, compelling and unavoidably satisfying. 

Jay-Z perfectly embodies the 'Gatsby archetype'.

The mainstream considered rap a novelty but these rappers soon turned into Hip Hop Artist. The rise, popularity and crossover success of artist like Rakim, EPMD, KRS-ONE, Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash and eventually De La Soul, the Fugees and a Tribe Called Quest turned this supposed novelty into an American staple and eventually a cultural movement. Since raps conception, the core of every bar spit has arguably been competition, which is also uniquely American. However, much liken an unchecked capitalist economy, there are winners, there are losers and, over time, this competitions spreads unintended consequences that can often be unfortunate as well as devastating. Hip hops reverberations will soon be, if not already, tantamount to the cultural and music shifts of The Beatles or Michael Jackson.

In general, Hip Hop today, regrettably revolves around the incorrigible, seemingly inescapable and insatiable celebrity-via-Gatsby archetype; cynically materialistic, purposely nonsensical and shamefully hollow. I am not critiquing the Artful wordplay,

poetic interpretations and lyrical story telling of uncomfortable topics like social inequality, hard-knock upbringings, forgotten communities, oppressive conditions told in explicit but eloquent delivery. That music is important and relevant art; art which has an invaluable place in our society. What I personally take issue with are the chart-topping rap songs that are usually without purpose, cause or message; rap that legitimizes and perpetuates hateful and violent repetition of homophobic and misogynistic slurs and stereotypes. The lesser of these offending themes; uber-celebrity, easy money and greed; are also factually erroneous and misleading. This helps to build a insidious worship of materialism.

However, like I said already I love hip hop. I am not, and may never, give up on my lost love. Occasionally a fleeting flash of hip hop hope surfaces; Jedi mind tricks, the dilated peoples, Common,, the Underachievers, Andre Younge, brother Ali, and a plethora of local artist; all of which you won’t normally here on the radio or tv; still give me hope for the future state of Hip Hop.

By Christopher Morris aka DJ Cak3slay3r

Wood worker redux

The Woodworker Allegory

by Christopher Morris

Ethics Class Discussion topic:

Do you think that modern American society promotes self-interested moral behavior? Do you think that this is a bad thing?

Response from a Classmate -Anonymous:

I do think that American society promotes self-interested behavior.  I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing!  I think that we should worry about ourselves.  Sure, there are people in the world who have awful lives, with far less rights than we as Americans have, but knowing this does not shrink someone's personal plight.  People want to have the best lives that they can have.  Good for them.  I do not think that people who are ambitious and interested in their own success should be criticized for it.  Not everyone wants to give back.  Some people who want to give back are badgered by charity after charity for money, and they can't necessarily give to all of them.  Just because somebody is their own top priority does not mean that they are a bad person. 

My Dissenting Opinion: The woodworker allegory

I do not disagree with all of your points. I agree that "people who are ambitious and interested in their own success should (not) be criticized" and of course there are “people in the world who have awful lives, with far less rights than we as Americans have, but knowing this does not shrink someone's personal plight”. I think the previous quotes have much truth to them.  But before we start thinking on a global scale of fairness, lets ponder a national one.

 It would be too easy to point at investment bankers and Wall Street barons and criticize them for not "pitching in their fair share". So instead of a banker lets use the example of an independent wood worker.  This person makes furniture by hand, buying his or her own wood, carving it by hand and selling it to happy customers. The craftsman hard work leads him to much success. The wood worker's success is the payoff for countless hours of hard work. And if that person doesn’t want to "give back” to society so what? Why should they have to give anything to anyone? They, alone, earned their success, right?

Well this kind of thinking does not take into account many factors that led the wood worker to his or her success. Where this line of argument is short sighted is in the successful entrepreneur’s personal journey to success. Did society help this person? Lets say this person never took out subsidized student loans or grants, never received cash, food or heating assistance; Was this person helped out by anyone but themselves? Did the person receive anything from our American society?  The answer is undoubtedly YES:

Someone took the time to train and teach this person, most likely a teacher or professor that was paid in full, or in part, by the people of this country. Your theory would also dismiss a couple other facts; the goods and customers the woodworker directly benefited from, had to travel to his workshop over roads that we, the people of the United States, paid to build and still pay to maintain. If this wood worker's shop caught on fire he would expect that firefighters, paid for by the people, to put out that fire.   The wood worker also does not have to generally worry about someone stealing his furniture because of our police, who are paid for by the tax paying people of this country (quick note: Taxpayers include anyone who buys anything in this country).

These obligations to the wood worker are part of the social contract that, in sum, contributes to our great American society.  At some level, all of us contribute to and benefit from this social contract.

The purpose of my woodworker allegory is to highlight that, in our great nation, reward comes with responsibility. Simply put, no one succeeds in this country entirely on his or her own.  The responsibility for those who have achieved success is merely to pay forward a small portion of what they themselves were indiscriminately afforded.

What if someone’s starting point was closer to success than another persons (being born rich rather than poor), surely the lucky man cannot be blamed for his luck, right?

Right, however there are things that need to be taken into consideration when dictating what is fair and what is not. Important questions need to be asked. Is the poor-born American afforded similar, if not the same opportunities to personally succeed in life that the rich-born American is? (Obviously not)

When a person who succeeds does not recognize the help they have gotten along the way, they become prideful, selfish and greedy.  I am not talking about a complete leveling of this “playing field”; this is an extreme and unrealistic request that neither most people nor I expect or argue for. But there needs to be some leveling of the mere opportunity to succeed, if for nothing else to ensure that every opportunity does not just automatically go to a privileged few.  This is the true American dream, opportunity for all.  

Science Skeptics winning war on fact; environment, children suffer. By Christopher Morris

Science Skeptics winning war on fact; environment, children suffer.   
Written by Christopher Morris
Edit by  E. K. 

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " 

- John Adams @ Boston Massacre Trials (12/4/1770)

In 1998, the esteemed British medical journal, The Lancet, published a study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield claimed that the two-shot vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (M.M.R.), caused an epidemic of autism ^[1][2]. M.M.R. was, and still is, a common childhood vaccine The CDC claims that if vaccinations were stopped, each year about 2.7 million measles deaths worldwide could be expected­­ ⁽¹⁰⁾. Wakefield’s research and “autism by vaccine” public statements caused widespread panic and outrage, especially from parents. The CDC claims that 95% of all    domestic children received the vaccine in 2007 ⁽¹⁰⁾. Dr. Maurice Hilleman created this M.M.R. vaccine in 1971 After Wakefield’s damning study, Dr. Hilleman’s name, reputation and life’s work were officially tarnished.  In his latter years Hilleman received scorn from colleagues and hate mail in light of Wakefield’s research ^[1][2][5][6].

Fast-forward to April 2013, when the United Kingdom’s General Medical Council imposed their most penalizing reprimand in a ruling against Dr. Andrew Wakefield.  Dr. Wakefield was fined and is now banned from practicing medicine in the UK.  Wakefield’s movements over the past decade may indicate that he knew something of this nature could happen.  Closing his British medical practice in 2004, Wakefield set up shop in Texas despite not being licensed as a physician in the United States. Dr. Wakefield’s allegations that the vaccine M.M.R Vaccine was not only harmful, but potentially lethal; many inquires into the 1998 studies were made by multiple independent and respected researchers in the field. . Since 2001 “14 large epidemiological studies consistently showed no association between the MMR vaccine and autism” and in 2004 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) formed an Independent Immunization Safety Review Committee to review and critique those findings ⁽⁴⁾. The Committee concluded that the body of epidemiological evidence rejects the “causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism” and concluded that the body of epidemiological evidence “favors rejection of any causal relationship between thimerosal (containing mercury) vaccines and autism”^[4].

The American Medical Association wholly endorsed the IOM’s findings. Over the years, evidence keeps mounting that Wakefield’s research was either fabricated or negligibly false.

The original publisher of this controversial research, The Lancet, officially removed Wakefield’s work from their journal’s annals in February 2010. On the heels of The Lancet’s retraction of the 1998 study, Pediatric’s released their anticipated, decade-long, exhaustive study on prenatal and infant vaccination and autism. Pediatric’s conclusions were consistent with the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee’s 2004 report: still no link between vaccines (now including vaccines contain mercury) and autism ⁽⁵⁾.

To date, Wakefield stands by his study despite ever-mounting evidence to the contrary and the fact that the rest of the medical researchers requested their names be removed from the study ^[2][3].

The “autism by vaccine” argument has long been discredited. Despite the overwhelming evidence of doubt, educated and working-class parents of all political affiliations accept this (now) common “autism by vaccine” misnomer. This is part of a larger trend of science skepticism. These trends seem too ubiquitous to have happened by societal osmosis.  In other words, this cultural phenomenon has been tactfully planned and executed.

Liberals and progressives were the first to fuel the fires of the vaccine fears; this seems much more naturally happenstance. We are all aware of the stereotypical bleeding heart naive liberal.  Well, this stereotype is based in some truth.  Liberals are generally more open to new ideas and shifts in the status quo and traditionally have an inherent urge to help the “little guy”, especially if pharmaceutical company are per However, as the science caught up to itself and the autism fear-mongering subsided, liberals learned to let go of their newly-found skepticism.

Needless to say, the vast majority of science skeptics identify as conservatives and independents ^(13)(14). Yes, you may still find the occasional stubborn “liberal” who subscribes to such absurdities. In my experience, these “liberals” tend to be pseudo-progressives who make up a very small faction of the left. These small factions are divided into many splinter groups that are often lumped into the broad category of “left”.  Socialist and Green party members, militant environmentalists, confused libertarians, fundamentalist atheists, nihilists, anarchists, old hippies, and “occupiers” who never branched out into the more productive off-shoots of the Occupy movement. These very small factions of the left are generally ‘totally informed’ as in up-to-date current events (that happened 10 years ago) Their gap in knowledge can be attributed to faulty arguments, belief in unscientific analyses, not reading newspapers; lacking a radio, TV, and computer; or living in a secluded commune. However, the liberal crowds that still subscribe to "autism by vaccine” (that do not typically smell of weed, patchouli and/or insanity) have rapidly dissipated since the scientific and medical communities consensus was clear.

This is in stark contrast to most self-identifying conservatives who subscribe to science denial. Most of these individuals would only give up their denialism if you “pry’d it from their cold-dead-hands”.  Obviously this is an extreme stance that reasonable people, left or right, are not going to even attempt to penetrate.  Science skeptics are best known for their “Academic Freedom” fights; attempting to liken the Theory of Evolution to creationism.  The originally fringe science-denialists, combined with a recent push in populist skepticism and general mistrust of authority, set the stage for science fear-mongering and political pandering to extremist partisans. A perfect example is Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann falsely proclaiming that the HPV vaccine causes cervical cancer on national television. This politically charged skepticism was ignited further by the financial collapse of 2008. The “barn doors” to science denialism swung open in a coordinated coalition of fundamentalist conservative Christians, conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists, the Koch Brothers^[16][A] and, unfortunately, vulnerable and frustrated groups like the families touched by autism that still subscribe to Wakefield's misleading 1998 study.  In sum, the “autism by vaccine” movement has been coalesced into the assault on intellect, academics and science.  The denying of science is undoubtedly an issue but the motivations behind denying science are a moot point. Regardless whether religious zealotry, conspiracy paranoia, frustration, or cold political calculus is the driving factor, this is dangerous ground and has real life consequences. 

Over several decades this level of skepticism, which was once only home to the “trust-no-one" conspiracy crowd, has reverberated a negative influence on public perception of issues from public health to environmental concern alike.

 A few of weeks ago I was visiting with married friends of mine. Politically speaking, this couple leans center right but they are in no way extremist. As I matter-of-factly mentioned that it was Earth Day, the husband grew a cringe on his face. After inquiring if he had a problem with Earth Day, he shared that Earth Day was just "a propaganda tool for more regulation" and "government spending." I disagreed but pivoted topics in the spirit of civility. I would have conceded to my friend that Earth Day has went gone the way of most holidays; a marketing tool for consumerism: my email was filled with "special offers" of "green" bathroom sets, "eco-friendly" hot tubs and even a Williams-Sonoma “Easy Eco-pod” unit. but I didn't want to participate in anymore anti-Earth Day fervor. 

How conservation became an anti-conservative initiative, I don’t know. How could Earth Day, the holiday celebrating the very thing that sustains all of us, be controversial? I don’t assume a trend just by one man's cringe or opinion.  The effects of science denial can be seen in a multitude of societal phenomenon and shifts in public trends. 

Participation in Earth Day has been decreasing for many years. April 22^nd, Forty-three years ago a massive, coordinated demonstration of twenty million participants kicked off the first Earth day nation-wide.  Earth Day was originally the brainchild of Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson. Senator Nelson contacted almost all the governors and mayors across the country asking them to issue Earth Day Declarations, raised funds and sent literature to domestic colleges, high schools and grade schools explaining Earth Day. What dedication Senator Nelson had to his planet. The closest thing to social media and the Internet Senator Nelson had were telegrams, typewriters and the US postal service.  On the first Earth Day in 1970 the “House and Senate Chambers emptied” because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were out making pro-conservation speeches on what was 1970’s “most popular and least risky” political issue. Could you imagine Eric Cantor, Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal giving speeches on the importance of our environment? 

The current interests that want academic and scientific findings discredited are not gaining their momentum by gaining a majority of citizens’ support. Similarly, science denialists are not gaining ground in the battle on facts because they’re changing public opinion. No, the fact is the minority extremists gain ground and win these battles because the reasonable folk have been largely silent. The indifference of reasonable people may very well be our downfall.  In 2013 the result of this indifference is a political right full secessionist, anti-science zealots, conservatives politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries to the robber baron financiers and fossil fuel tycoons. Well educated and fiscally conservatives Republicans who used to be Liberal social issues now propose anti-LGBT, anti-choice legislation. However, the most disturbing and clearest indication that our American political spectrum has been yanked too far to the right is that reasonable Republicans cannot refer to global warming as Climate Change unless they want to lose their position in office. Calling global warming the “Climate Controversy” is a shrewdly subtle way to disengage the public from the very real problems we face environmentally. The political left is not much better. Neutered by their own campaign contributors and silenced by their fear of alienating the 5-10%[est] of voters that are considered “Independent”, most Democrats are just as ineffective at legislating.

My theory is that conservative politicians pander to the extreme factions of their base by supporting science denial, something most of them do not believe themselves. Congressman Eric Cantor, Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal may be our worst offenders.  Eric Cantor received a Juris Doctor from William & Mary Law School and a Master in Science from Columbia University. Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law. Bobby Jindal graduated with honors from Brown, passed on Yale and Harvard and studied as a Rhodes Scholar at New College, Oxford receiving an MLitt (Master of Letters) in Political Science with an emphasis on Health Policy. I find it impossible that any of these three, highly educated men actually believe in vaccine conspiracies and science denial.  

  I have empirical proof that at least one prominent conservative doesn’t believe his own science denial hype: Just Google the only 5 year old YouTube video “2008 Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich alternative energy”<Below>. 

[ http://youtu.be/VaZFfQKWX54 ]

So who really cares if these American politicians play partisan politics with scientific facts? On the surface, this science denial may seem arbitrary to some. Elected leaders blatantly deceiving their constituents in order to win elections is frightening enough for many.  To see more dire ramifications of science skepticism we need only look a crossed “the pond”.

  The measles vaccine came to the UK in 1968. Prior to 1968 about half a million people caught measles each year, causing the deaths of hundreds of citizens from Britain, Scotland and Wales ^[7]. The rate of deaths caused by measles modestly decreased over the next 20 years. When the MMR vaccine came to the UK in 1988 deaths from measles drop down to single digits thanks to the widespread.  Those signal digit deaths were consistent from year to year until recently ^[7]. In April 2013 the United Kingdom’s department of health (DOH) announced an outbreak of measles in South Wales. The outbreak in South Wales has affected almost 700 people; the DOH believes parents refusing to vaccinate their children are largely to blame ^[6]. It is no surprise that there is a consensus between UK citizens and government officials who believe that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 panic-inspiring study is largely to blame for this current outbreak ^[6]. The moral of this tale: science denial can equate to real-life consequences, including the loss of life.                                                                                       

 NOTES:

^[A]“The Kochs have also contributed vast sums to promote skepticism towards climate change, more even than the oil industry according to some estimates. Greenpeace, for instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m on climate-skeptic groups between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch brothers backed such groups to the tune of nearly $25m.”

-Steve Connor Thursday 24 January 2013

Citations:

1)  Conniff, R A Forgotten Pioneer of Vaccines. THE NEW YORK TIMES. May 6, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/health/maurice-hilleman-mmr-vaccines-forgotten-hero.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1368014760-9VXEl3TfoYNozUPvumufig

2) Burns,J.F. British Medical Council Bars Doctor Who Linked Vaccine With Autism. THE NEW YORK TIMES. May 24, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/health/policy/25autism.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1368014773-GtvYYjZimC1PEgQurr9RXg

3) GENZLINGER, N. Vaccinations: A Hot Debate Still Burning. THE NEW YORK TIMES. April 26, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/arts/television/27vaccine.html

4) IOM Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/#_ncbi_dlg_citbx_NBK25344

 5) Price CS, Thompson WW, Goodson B, Weintraub ES, Croen LA, Hinrichsen VL, Marcy M, Robertson A, Eriksen E, Lewis E, Bernal P, Shay D, Davis RL, DeStefano F (2010) Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and Immunoglobins and Risk of Autism Adobe PDF file [PDF - 365 KB]External Web Site Icon. Pediatrics 126(4):656-664

6) http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/14/vaccine_and_autism_uk_measles_outbreaks_and_andrew_wakefield.html

7) Associated Press. “Ministry dismisses Andrew Wakefield's criticism over Wales measles outbreak”. ()4/13/13

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/13/department-health-andrew-wakefield

8)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309.full.pdf

9)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=antiscience-beliefs-jeopardize-us-democracy

10)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

11) http://www.pal.uga.edu/Project4/Assignment%20Vaccination.html

12) Adams, J. “John Adam’s Speech”, federalistpapers.org (12/4/1770)   http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/john-adams             

13)   http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

14) http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

15) http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/22/fewer-americans-see-solid-evidence-of-global-warming/

16) http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-kochtopus-stifled-green-debate-8466316.html

The Woodworker Allegory

The Woodworker Allegory

by Christopher Morris

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Background:

I just finished an online ethics course at my college. The feedback i received from my professor and fellow classmates are what inspired me to start a blog in the first place. "Small D-blog" is for political journalism, punditry, Op-Eds and academics. 

Ethics Class Discussion topic:

Do you think that modern American society promotes self-interested moral behavior? Do you think that this is a bad thing?

Response from a Classmate that will remain nameless - Anonymous:

I do think that American society promotes self-interested behavior.  I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing!  I think that we should worry about ourselves.  Sure, there are people in the world who have awful lives, with far less rights than we as Americans have, but knowing this does not shrink someone's personal plight.  People want to have the best lives that they can have.  Good for them.  I do not think that people who are ambitious and interested in their own success should be criticized for it.  Not everyone wants to give back.  Some people who want to give back are badgered by charity after charity for money, and they can't necessarily give to all of them.  Just because somebody is their own top priority does not mean that they are a bad person. 

My Dissenting Opinion: The woodworker allegory

I do not disagree with all of your points. I agree that "people who are ambitious and interested in their own success should (not) be criticized" and of course there are “people in the world who have awful lives, with far less rights than we as Americans have, but knowing this does not shrink someone's personal plight”. I think the previous quotes have much truth to them.  But before we start thinking on a global scale of fairness, lets ponder a national one.

 It would be too easy to point at investment bankers and Wall Street barons and criticize them for not "pitching in their fair share". So instead of a banker lets use the example of an independent wood worker.  This person makes furniture by hand, buying his or her own wood, carving it by hand and selling it to happy customers. The craftsman hard work leads him to much success. The wood worker's success is the payoff for countless hours of hard work. And if that person doesn’t want to "give back” to society so what? Why should they have to give anything to anyone? They, alone, earned their success, right?

 

Well this kind of thinking does not take into account many factors that led the wood worker to his or her success. Where this line of argument is short sighted is in the successful entrepreneur’s personal journey to success. Did society help this person? Lets say this person never took out subsidized student loans or grants, never received cash, food or heating assistance; Was this person helped out by anyone but themselves? Did the person receive anything from our American society?  The answer is undoubtedly YES:

Someone took the time to train and teach this person, most likely a teacher or professor that was paid in full, or in part, by the people of this country. Your theory would also dismiss a couple other facts; the goods and customers the woodworker directly benefitted from, had to travel to his workshop over roads that we, the people of the United States, paid to build and still pay to maintain. If this wood worker's shop caught on fire he would expect that firefighters, paid for by the people, would put out that fire.   The wood worker also does not have to generally worry about someone stealing his furniture because of our police, who are paid for by the tax paying people of this country (quick note: Taxpayers include anyone who buys anything in this country).

These obligations to the wood worker are part of the social contract that, in sum, contributes to our great American society.  At some level, all of us contribute to and benefit from this social contract.

The purpose of my woodworker allegory is to highlight that, in our great nation, reward comes with responsibility. Simply put, no one succeeds in this country entirely on his or her own.  The responsibility for those who have achieved success is merely to pay forward a small portion of what they themselves were indiscriminately afforded.

What if someone’s starting point was closer to success than another persons (being born rich rather than poor), surely the lucky man cannot be blamed for his luck, right?

Right, however there are things that need to be taken into consideration when dictating what is fair and what is not. Important questions need to be asked. Is the poor-born American afforded similar, if not the same opportunities to personally succeed in life that the rich-born American is? (Obviously not)

When a person who succeeds does not recognize the help they have gotten along the way, they become prideful, selfish and greedy.  I am not talking about a complete leveling of this “playing field”; this is an extreme and unrealistic request that neither most people nor I expect or argue for. But there needs to be some leveling of the mere opportunity to succeed, if for nothing else to ensure that every opportunity does not just automatically go to a privileged few.  This is the true American dream, opportunity for all.