Peter Singer

In 1972, Peter Singer wrote:

“if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.”

Since then, the “shallow pond” argument has remained remained a powerful force in conversations about justice and the obligations of the world’s affluent people to the severely poor. And, since Singer moved to Princeton several years ago, he’s been able to move his arguments from philosophical circles to the broader public. (His NY Times article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” first brought to the general public his views on aid to the severely poor. And his targets have included both billionaires and regular folks.)

Earlier this year Singer released his newest book, The Life You Can Save. If you’ve been following Singer’s publications since he originally wrote about the shallow pond then there won’t be a lot new in this book. (There’s been vast amounts of responses to his arguments, counter arguments offered by Singer and others, etc.) But if you’ve been a casual follower, then there’s plenty of interesting things to be found here. He discusses, among other things, the philosophical arguments supporting his original view, responds to the counter arguments, and suggests, again, that regular folks give a small percentage of their income to help the severely poor. And, now, nearly four decades later, his argument remains as potent as ever.

Sir Edward Downes and Wife Joan

A few days ago, looking for the obituary of Darrell Powers, I found an obit in the New York Times about the assisted suicide of Sir Edward Downes and his wife. Downes’ wife Joan was terminally ill with cancer. Downes, while not terminally ill, was 85 and losing both his sight and hearing. The couple elected to travel to Switzerland and end their lives together.

Subsequently I found a series of posts over at Double X addressing the couples decision from a variety of view points. It’s a great exchange about an issue that’s sure to become more and more prevalent in the coming years. At this time in my life I’m firmly in the camp that supports legalizing this practice. Not throwing open the doors mind you but it is cruelly bad policy to keep it illegal.

I think the American culture surrounding death is very different from that around the world. We’re imbued with the idea that life is priceless and every additional second is worth pursuing at any cost. It colors our debate about the health care system and I’m excited to see if this congresses go round with the question produces some sort of real discussion about when enough is enough. Will we step back and reconsider the idea that death is bad or death is good and entertain the notion that death just isn’t.

Trader Joes

If you’re a student, yuppie, bobo, or just someone who likes quality products at reasonable prices, then you’ve probably shopped at Trader Joe’s. The guys from my grad school house routinely made a trip down (often through ball freezing Massachusetts winters) to the Charles River Trader Joe’s to grab groceries. So, I was dismayed when I was forwarded an email by a friend that pointed out that Trader Joe’s ranks near the bottom of national grocery chains on sustainable fish. Greenpeace has a “Traitor Joe’s” site highlighting the store’s practice of selling of nonsustainable fish, e.g., Chilean sea bass. The old adage, “There’s always more fish in the sea,” no longer obtains. One EU study found that “Eighty-eight percent of EU stocks are fished beyond their maximum sustainable yield - the highest catch that can be maintained over an indefinite period - and for some, such as North Sea cod, the vast majority of fish are caught before they have reproduced.” Wrapping up, then, visit the Traitor Joe’s site and send Trader Joe’s a message about being more responsible about the fish they sell. And, for those of you who think fishing is less environmentally harmful than dry land factory farming, it’s time to think again.

The role one’s religion should play in political decision-making remains a debated issue. John Rawls believes ideally that religious reasons shouldn’t be used in political argument. In Political Liberalism, citing the examples of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., he does make exceptions based on his “proviso.” But he believes firmly in his ideal of “public reason.” On his view, public reason is “characteristic of a democratic people: it is the reason of its citizens, of those sharing the status of equal citizenship. The subject of their reason is the good of the public: what the political conception of justice requires of a society’s basic structure of institutions, and of the purposes and ends they are to serve. Public reason, then, is public in three ways: as reasons of the citizens as such, it is the reason of the public; its subject is the good of the public and matters of fundamental justice; and its nature and content is public, being given by the ideals and principles expressed by society’s conception of political justice, and conducted open to view on that basis… As an ideal conception of citizenship for a constitutional democratic regime, it presents how things might be, taking people as a just and well-ordered society would encourage them to be. It describes what is possible and can be, yet may never be, though no less fundamental for that.” Nicholas Wolterstorff, contra Rawls, has other ideas about the role religion and faith should play in citizens’ decision-making and liberal democracy. Here he is speaking with Miroslav Volf.

Obama & Sotomayor at Press Conference

There was a lot of debate about who President Obama would appoint as a Supreme Court nominee. Many on the left hoped he’d pick a “larger than life” liberal to balance against Scalia, Thomas, etc. President Obama’s pick, as we now know, is Sonia Sotomayor who, if confirmed, will join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as one of two women on the Supreme Court. But her nomination hasn’t been without controversy. Specifically, there’s been a quote taken out of context from her 2001 lecture at UC Berkeley. And, given the (mis)quote’s ubiquitousness, if Keith Olbermann hadn’t aired the quote in full on his program I don’t think we’d have escaped its grasp. Here’s the fuller quote (I’ve italicized the part we’re all familiar with):

… Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Sotomayor is soon set to begin her confirmation hearings. The NY Times has an interview with Justice Ginsburg on women on the bench, their decision-making, and Sotomayor. On currently being the only woman on the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg says, “It’s almost like being back in law school in 1956, when there were 9 of us in a class of over 500, so that meant most sections had just 2 women, and you felt that every eye was on you. Every time you went to answer a question, you were answering for your entire sex. It may not have been true, but certainly you felt that way. You were different and the object of curiosity.”

Martha Nussbaum

The latest issue of Dissent features an article by Martha Nussbaum on same-sex marriage and constitutional law. For those of you who are familiar with Nussbaum’s work, specifically Women and Human Development, know that marriage falls within the ambit of “central human functional capabilities.” On affiliation, she writes, “Being able to live with and towards other people, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction….this entails, at minimum, protections against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, caste, ethnicity, or national origin.”

For her, the public debate about same-sex marriage isn’t one about the content of marriage (friendship, intimacy, etc.), civil aspects of marriage (that is, whether same-sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexual couples), nor is it about the religious aspects of marriage. She notes that religions are internally divided on the status of same-sex couples. She believes, rather, that the public debate is about “the expressive aspects of marriage.” After discussing the “Golden Age of marriage’ she moves onto what we’re seeing in today’s sociopolitical environment, including the panic same-sex marriage seems to excite. She concludes by saying that whatever states choose to do about same-sex marriage it “will be done on a basis of equality. Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public interest.”

One extra note. The online version of the article includes responses from several commentators.

The EU Commission is a fascinating place. The body of 20 commissioners nominated by each member of the European Union to preside over it (and effectively act like some form of limited government) once the graveyard of many a political loser. For this read Neil Kinnock (who lost once to Margaret Thatcher and then to John Major for the seat of Prime Minister) and Chris Pattern (the man who was thrown into the equivalent of exile by becoming Hong Kong’s last Governor). Both now occupy positions in the Commission. Javier Solana, the former head of NATO who proved to be as strong as Gerald Ford in a maths test is now EU Foreign Policy chief (a watered down Foreign Minister).

But all this is changing. The EU members (especially the big four of France, Germany, Italy and the UK) are starting to get tired of the constant meddling and bickering of the EU Commission. It’s constant rulings and issuing of ‘guidelines’ (which it expects every member nation to implement) which touches every part of every European’s way of life have proved to be a frustrating experience that domestic ministers in each member nation have had to endure again and again for the last three decades.

No longer however. A few months ago, the Commission ruled that Germany and France were breaking the so called ‘stability pact’ which all Euro Zone nations signed to keep inflation low and thus keep the Euro Currency stable. The pact expressly forbid increases in public spending or borrowing above a set level.

France and Germany did both and this in particular infuriated the little political failures in Brussels who instantly issued a declaration insisting that France and Germany take immediate steps to steer their economies back into the black.

If this were any time before the millennium, the two Old World powers would grumble and reluctantly step back into line. But this time they stood their ground and basically said “so what? You can’t harm us!”

And this is where it all started to go wrong for the commission. The stability pact was thus broken and not only that, other Eurozone nations like Italy are predicting that they’ll break the pact too within months!

And if that didn’t compound their problems, the new entry countries from Eastern Europe are already saying that there is no way on gods earth that they can even begin to keep within the boundaries of the stability pact!

This just confirms that the Commission is loosing its once iron grip on the EU. The members want their club back and its not just because the Commission is telling them how long their bananas should be or how far they should increase borrowing.

Poland and Italy have expressed dismay over the Commission’s talks with Turkey on a possible application to the EU. Germany had a nervous breakdown when some unknown civil servant within Brussels (where the commission is based by the way) leaked that the Commission was thinking – not doing or considering- merely thinking of using the carrot of EU Membership to make Israel to play nice in the Middle East.

That sent panic throughout Europe. An Islamic nation within the continent of Europe joining was bad enough but a country which was the equivalent of 1000 years worth of skeletons crashing out of the cupboard and onto the EU stage was horrifying, almost mortifying. France protested, Germany fainted, the UK did was it usually did and hid behind the couch and refused to comment and all the little members of the EU jumped up and down in outrage.

Yes the Commission seems to have committed one too many mistakes and this might explain why half of its members are quitting some months before the current term is up for the team of twenty commissioners. Even the Commission President Romano Prodi is too busy being leader of the Italian Opposition to deal with matters of EU State anymore.

Which thus asks the question; is the EU Commission simply now just another rubber stamping authority and a stick to beat up Microsoft and other multinationals with? Or are its days simply numbered?

Blair & Chirac

The 100 year old agreement that still protects France from attack by Germany still stands today. The Mutual assistance treaty of two of Europe’s least likely allies (when really it should have been the UK and Germany signing an ‘Entente Cordial’) still exists despite two world wars and shaky relations since WW2.

Today though, behind the PR and the spin; the UK and France, Blair and Chirac and their legions of ministers and civil servants could not be more further apart than 100 years ago.

Despite France allowing British immigration officials onto French Ports to check for illegal immigrants, France still considers itself a ’staging post’ and tries to hurry illegals to any other country that is near or has a border with France. Ireland and the Scandinavians have complained about this as well as the UK.

Then there is the never ending arugments over France’s banning of British Beef when tests now show that British Beef is the safest in the World (especially the Scottish and Northern English kinds) despite French protests.

When you add Chirac’s insistance on an independent European Union Defence Force (which nearly gave Blair a heart attack when he was jumped by Chirac and Shroeder with the idea last year), his violent protests against the war in iraq and his vigorous defence of the massively unfair Common Agriculture Policy (which gives huge subsidies to French Farming, an effective barrier to entry for third world farmers) then you see the gap between the two leaders.

Blair is Thatcherite at heart. He is a conviction politian and he will stop at nothing to get to his goal (even if they are very wrong).

Chirac however is your typical down and dirty survivor. Eager to jump as many ships as he wants as long as he keeps that Presidential spot and out of court for his many alleged crimes of corruption.

How Blair tries to outsmart a very smart political fox will be interesting to see in this centennial year of the Entante Cordial.

Ralph Nader Living Wage

A book came out last year which should have gotten more attention had the nation’s news media not fallen in the obsessive trap of the Iraq-obsessive President. It is called “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke”(Basic Books).

Written by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, an expert on consumer bankruptcy, and her Wharton M.B.A. daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, this volume provides insights not normally revealed by aggregate economic data. It is about real earnest people in financial trouble.

The Warrens stimulated my recollection of growing up in a New England mill town in the late Forties, where one breadwinner could provide a family with a middle-class living standard as then defined. Even in the Seventies, the authors report that most families could do fairly well on one income. An average family paid 56 percent of its only breadwinner’s wages for housing, health insurance and other fixed costs.

Today that family, notwithstanding the availability of two incomes, pays 75 percent for these necessities and has 25 percent left over for discretionary purchases. It gets worse of course for single parents who have only 4 percent of income after fixed costs.

Compared with the Fifties, the share of family income going to housing now is much higher. You think interest rates on mortgages are low today, between 5.5 and 6 percent? Fifty years ago, the interest rates on fixed mortgages were under 3 percent and better yet with a VA housing loan.

There were millions of veterans then.

With the decline of the extended family and the shattering of the nuclear family for many, the ever-longer commutes, costs of getting to work and placing the children in day care all take a sizable chunk of the paycheck. Less time for comparison shopping increases the consumer dollars spent on items. Then come the charges, fees and penalties associated with an overextended credit card economy. Credit has a million pushers - subprime predatory lending rates, pay day loans, rent-to-own rackets.

The lending industry has been all over Congress in recent years to pass legislation making it even more difficult to go into bankruptcy. To gain more influence on Capitol Hill beyond their buying and renting of lawmakers, these lobbyists spread the myth of immoral borrowers exorbitantly dining out and buying too many fancy clothes. An intensive study of 2000 families who fell into dire financial straits, if not bankruptcy shows a different real picture. Warren says “it’s about homes in safe neighborhoods (which raises prices).” She gives many more examples of the “two income trap.”

A major study is needed on the costs associated with two spouses going to work, in addition to day care which now can cost $500 a month or more. For instance, another used car, another auto insurance policy, repair and maintenance expenses, and parking fees add up to real money.

Consumers ought to spend some time netting out what is left after these and other expenses. Of course, there are expenses from the consequences of children being without their parents for hours during the day - delinquency, guilt-based expensive gifts to the children (Nintendo games instead of quality playful time), and the credentialed counselors who now take the place of aunt, grandma or uncle.

Much of economic growth in recent years has come from the commercializing of family functions once provided free. The time pressures on working parents leads to this need to pay for what the family formerly provided cheaper or free.

The Warrens recommend re-instating the usury laws which protected consumers from staggering interest rates that amount to a debtors’ prison without walls. Learning how to control some of these traps through financial knowhow also helps.

The basic problem is that with the inflation-adjusted twenty to twenty-five fold increase in productivity per capita since 1900, why don’t we have an economy where one working person per family can sustain a middle-class standard of living? Why indeed are there any working poor families in our country? Where is this massive increase in per capita productivity going, in addition to sharper disparities of wealth between the few at the top and the rest of America?

Those questions may become the next stage of research by the Warrens and other scholars sensitive to economic injustice.