Vietnam Christmas

Christmas here in Vietnam is I think more pleasant, at least for adults, than in the States because people don't exchange gifts.  Instead it's a sort of city-wide street party, with everyone out touring around and all the streets (downtown) decorated, and with Christmas music coming from the loudspeakers.  Also the Catholics go to mass and the Buddhists tend to go to Temple (although of course everyone knows its not a Buddhist holiday the Buddhists celebrate anyway).

The absence of gift giving means you don't have the commercial (bordering on crass) elements of the holiday in the States, and none of the pressure.  Because it's so public, you also don't have the loneliness for those without families.

Later in the winter comes Tet (known in the West as Chinese New Year) when people really go to Temple (I don't know what the Catholics do) and give children and certain others "lucky money" (relatively small amounts in a decorated red envelope -- red in Vietnam is the color of good luck).  Nothing to buy except the envelopes -- sold all over the city by street vendors -- so not commercialized.

There is to my mind here a trade-off.  Not having to pick out a gift for each person avoids a lot of stress and, since this is mainly about children, the disappointment children can express when they don't get what they wanted (adults of course hide their feelings and just exchange or return it the next week).   However, are gifts of money really gifts?  The "lucky" part and the red envelopes camouflage the tasteless aspect of hard cash rather than something personal.  Still, it also has the huge benefit of avoiding commercialization and all that that brings with it.

Discerning real science from pseudo-science

It's hard for the layperson to distinguish real science from cleverly done pseudo-science.  Sometimes the pseudo-science puts on such a "scientific" performance, with all the right jargon and all the right credentials (that of course we can't possibly confirm) and even the right "peer review" (again impossible to confirm).

To a large extent we have to accept the authority of the scientific community.  Isolated "findings" that get ignored by the community are to be suspected, and when debunkers appear from within that community, then one feels pretty confident.

However, as we all know, "science" can be wrong (although this is less common than many would have us think).

I use a few personal tests.  First, I discount personal stories and testimony.  It is too bad that this has to be, but it has to be.  Even the most honest person can have moments of delusion, moments of "filling in" details that aren't real (psychologists have demonstrated this many times).  Also of course not everyone is honest.  Liars abound, and not just those out for personal gain.  The history of religion is filled with pious frauds where the motive for the lies and exaggerations are to save someone's soul.

Second, I discount certain kinds of physical evidence that are subject to manipulation that may not be detectable, such as footprints and lie-detector tests and of course photos.

Third, I try to apply "common sense" and a sense of probability.  If something is too good to be true, it probably is.  If something is totally awe-inspiring and wondrous, I doubt.  One-headed bicyclists mistaken for two-headed bicyclists are more common than real two-headed bicyclists.

Aquarium instead of fireplace

One of the things I miss most about living in the tropics (Vietnam) is I have no excuse to have a fireplace.  I miss even those natural gas things that take so little hassle but are still warm and inviting, and a real log fire is one of the world's joys, especially when its cold outside and it gets one's cat and one's dog to both curl up nearby.

Almost as nice as waking up on a brisk morning covered in a heavy quilt and being in a situation to stay there and luxuriate.

However except for these two little things, and I guess the beauty of new fallen snow, winter sucks.  Snow is pretty only from a distance and from inside a warm house, and all I have to do is step in wet snow where I don't see a drop and it gets over my boot and into the boot and wets my socks with its slushy coldness and I'm off to Vietnam.  I can stand being cold anywhere except my feet.

Final straw -- having to scrape the ice off the windows of the car and then try to drive on icy or slushy roads -- different set of problems for each and neither any good.

So still I want a fireplace.  The locals are already pretty convinced I'm crazy, and if I go to the trouble and expense of installing one, it will confirm the matter, so I guess if for no other reason than face I will need to do without.  What could I substitute?

Well the Asians already have that one figured out.  Have an aquarium.  Not a goldfish bowl with a few forlorn guppies but a big ol' tank with all sorts of things moving around and, most important, bubbles making their way from the bottom to the top.  I think it's the upward movement that is so pleasant.

Of course it won't give off warmth -- not something I would want anyway considering my air conditioning bill -- but it would give a pleasant light and sound.  It might also attract my cats, although for entirely the wrong reason.

Judgmentalism

To be "judgmental" is kinda the opposite of having good judgment about people.  It's seeing the wrong in people and not the right -- an imbalance that in its extremes is bias and prejudice.

Still, if someone insults us or lies to us or steals from us or our partner is unfaithful and so on, aren't we justified in having bad thoughts about them?  The problem is the bad thoughts achieve nothing and may harm us.  Also, there is such a thing as forgiveness.  We should try to find ways to forgive, even without an apology or restitution.  Our relationships are worth more than our short-term feelings or material possessions.

Of course that doesn't mean we just forget: we learn and it may alter our behavior -- learn what the person is sensitive about, learn not to leave money laying around (bad habit anyway), maybe talk the event over in private and maybe make changes in the terms of the relationship.  Also remember that we don't ever know the whole story of why the thing happened.  We are all subject to desires of a short-term nature that may overwhelm our better judgment.  That we should control these desires goes without saying, and therefore should not be said.

What worries me the most and is in fact that brings me to post this is that people sometimes get in the habit of constantly judging others, in spite of the scriptural admonition that judgment belongs to the Lord.  Society must "judge" criminals, but not us.  It is not our position to mete out punishment either except in limited situations, and then neither we nor society has the right to decide someone is bad, but only to respond appropriately and compassionately to the actual offense.

So if someone offends us with their appearance or mode of speech, or is fat or effeminate or an alcoholic or other addict or has sticky fingers or boasts or gossips or is ostentatious or pedantic (like me), and so on, don't "forgive" them, just be wisely ignorant (in other words you know but you don't know).  Remember compassion and that you do not know the whole story.

Bullying

We tend to want to deny it but we are more subject to our instincts than we think.

Of course as "intelligent" free-will beings we think we are our masters, but phenomena like bullying belie this.  The benefit benefits no one, especially the bully who only makes enemies and is disliked by others not around, yet it goes on everywhere, and we know not just among children: especially not just among children.

I think there exists a will to dominate (and a will to submit, but that is another thing for another time) -- a desire to control and even be worshiped.  As with all desires, it has to be attributed to fundamental instincts, thing evolution has built into us, probably for complicated, hard to discern reasons.

Growing up in a somewhat rural area, I had to deal with my share of bullies.  Fortunately for me I was always a little large for my age, and this helped, but, to tell the truth, I was also something of a push-over in that I was non-violent by temperament and eager (to the point that looking back on it is embarrassing) to please adults and obey all the rules -- which of course meant no fighting.  So I was not part of the boys' pecking order.

However, I did pay attention in physical education classes and knew how to fight, so when it got too far and I lost my temper I generally won the affair and that particular would-be bully, after a few tries, would stop.  I remember one boy in particular, laying on his back with my knee on his throat, saying, "I think I want to be your friend."

This is all very masculine, boys being physical.  As I understand it girls have the same instinct but females are less physical and more verbal, so they bully in verbal ways.  That to me seems much worse -- not that boys don't do that too but in the end with them it ends up being physical most of the time, so that it can have a more effective end-point most of the time.

The real problem is that we carry this instinct forward into adulthood, where we may learn more subtle ways of doing it (and some still brutal and unsubtle).  It causes unhappy marriages, unhappy and vengeful children, disgruntled employees, and maybe even wars.

What can be done?  Well of course mindfulness is a solution; our desires (which generally have an instinctive origin) can be resisted if we are aware of them and how they manifest.  An instinct is not destiny and as long as we recognize some aspect of our behavior as deriving from our animal nature (actually that is a bad way of putting it as we remain animals no matter what we do, but the phrase is understood), it is relatively easy to refrain and find perhaps other outlets.

Of course the bully doesn't want to do that.  The instinct rewards the bully with pleasure.  That's the main way instincts work -- they reward us with a pleasurable experience, so in many cases intervention is needed to teach the little bastard a lesson and render the experience less pleasurable.

The Democrats Nuclear Option

Well now I've posted three blogs today, this will be the fourth.  Interesting that the spell checker doesn't know the word "blog."  Oh well.

What I think I want to do with these is just post them.  I suppose deeply buried in searches they will sometimes show up, but unlikely to be found, let alone commented on.  Maybe that will be the best.  I want to talk and express my opinions and thereby I hope refine them, but I don't like arguments, which is all I find on the discussion areas.  Not that I shouldn't be disagreed with, but not just for the sake of disagreeing.

So here I may well end up in the blissful state of never being contradicted -- a state of ignorance perhaps but also peace.

In a couple of blogs today I got into the subject of abortion and of the relationship of morals and politics.  This was mainly because of an email I got from my rather more conservative brother had the subject on my mind.  Obamacare, it seems, is going to insist that abortifacients be covered under all insurance policies offered, whether the buyer wants it or not.  That does seem a little much and I have my doubt whether it is true.  However, I think if it is going to be a standardized group plan, the employer should not have the right to opt out of such coverage, and the individual of course is under no obligation to utilize it.  A bit unfair, though, considering how insurance works, to make everyone pay for the coverage only some will want to use.

This brings me to the topic I thought I would talk about this time, namely the Nuclear Option that the Democrats adopted, making it where a majority of the Senate can approve Presidential nominations rather than three-fifths (Supreme Court nominations excepted).  That is about as stupid a thing as I can imagine, and illustrates how both parties have come to be dominated by their extremists.

Of course the Republicans have been making life difficult for some of these nominees, because in part of their own extremist wing, but Obama has not helped with his failure to consult and take into consideration the views of at least a few Republicans.  It seems as though he wants to create this situation for political propaganda reasons.  It only takes a handful of  Republicans to approve a nomination, so when they can get none whatsoever that tells me there is something wrong with the nominee.

Now that they have changed the rule, when Republicans have control they will be under no pressure to change it back.  In the end this means that both parties when in power will not have this constraint on appointees.  To me this is a small step toward less good government.  I might have the forlorn hope that come the Republicans back to power they would undo this, but that doesn't seem to be in anyone's thoughts.  Talk about politicians have short-term selfish perspective, considering neither the long term nor the effect on the nation!

Of course at the root of this problem is the political party system anyway, and especially the rule of having party primaries rather than open primaries, which has the effect of forcing candidates to appeal to the party stalwarts (those who turn out for primaries) rather than to the entire district.  Compounding this is all the little (and sometimes not so little) ways incumbents manage to make their position as safe as possible, by limiting campaign spending (making it harder for challengers), drawing safe districts, pork spending, and all the advantages of incumbency anyway.

Rational moral standards

I think maybe I'm getting this figured out; I think I will ignore the G+ business and stay here.

Abortion is a major moral question by not of course the only one, and the big question is how do we make moral decisions.  In my experience most people, even when they say otherwise, are guided by their conscience, with a dollop of utilitarianism thrown in.

They may say they are guided by authority (the Church, the Bible, the Q'uran) and sometimes quote passages, but these are not rule books and contain no rational law and only some vague guidance ("Do unto others, etc.).  No the main source of guidance is what feels right to us -- our conscience.

Where does conscience come from?  It seems to me more than likely that we have an instinctive ability to form a conscience, but the details are "filled in" during early life from our peers and our culture in general.  This is why different people from different cultures feel this or that is right or wrong (look for example at the evolution of attitudes about slavery in our own culture).

Conscience then is a fairly good guide, but not an infallible one.  Slavery is wrong in and of itself, so is carrying out raids on the neighboring tribe's hen-house, or torture, or being dishonest to foreigners, even though many in history have not seen such things as against their particular conscience.

Nowadays, this is generally understood, so people try to find a rational basis for their moral standards, and most opt for a fairly simple utilitarianism, even though (and I don't intend to get into them now) there are many objections to this approach.  It does work better most of the time than either dogmatic authoritarian religion based rules or from our culturally received conscience.

In short, assuming one is not a sociopath and therefore does want to do what is right, one has to realize that in many borderline situations there is no easy answer and one is better sitting back and thinking about it, perhaps in the context of the various ethical systems that have been proposed, rather than just going with what feels right.

OK, off with it.  What is on my mind now?  One thing, I've pretty much had it with message boards, probably because I don't like arguments and that seems to be all that goes on (do you suppose I don't like being disagreed with?)

Then there are monitors who, probably without really being aware, tend to push their views and discourage via being a stickler for the rules those who express different views.

I can't imagine a successful board without monitors, with all the spammers and trolls around, and I can't enjoy one with monitors and a bunch of vague and arbitrarily enforced rules.  So I don't think the format works at all well.

Enough of that.  What to talk about?  I'm interested in travel, English vocabulary and history and grammar (in particular how it might be reformed to be less rule-bound but still effective), history in general, layman science, cultures, serious music, human behavior, health issues (I'm quite long in the tooth but want to hold on), politics in the States, philosophy and religion.  That's quite a lot and I'm sure I left some other things out.

So let me start with one of these: travel, and of course first off that would be Vietnam, since I want to be able to live the rest of my life here.

I would not say Vietnam is all that great for tourism in the sense of historic sights and beautiful views.  To be sure the country has some very beautiful spots -- all countries do -- and if you are into the American War there are things about it to see -- but I tend to avoid being reminded of that.  The other thing is if you are into nice secluded beaches or into diving in the ocean.  Plenty of beaches, some touristy and others not.

What I find I like most are the people.  It's a country of touchers and smilers.  It OK to "stare" at someone, although this is diminishing as more and more Westerners get to be commonplace even out in the sticks.  The way to handle it is to look back and smile and even wave.  Big smiles will be returned.  Unlike some cultures it is not considered a sign of untrustworthiness to be smiley; it's considered a sign that you are a friendly person.

In the cities educated people and people who deal with the public generally speak enough English to be of real help.  If not they will get you someone who does.  This has proved a problem for me (should that be "proved" or "proven"?) as I would like to be forced to learn Vietnamese to keep my brain young.

Things here are inexpensive but not cheap -- that is, you have to have money -- it goes further but not forever and getting employment here as a foreigner is problematic (unless of course one is a well-credentialed English teacher).  Over the years it has become much easier to get money here from the States than it use to be, but the currency is not convertible yet.

The food here is to die for.  All kinds of tropical fruits besides a huge variety of everything else: much more variety than in even the biggest supermarkets in the States, and all much fresher.  Vietnamese "cuisine" is kinda Chinese but still itself, and one can also get food of almost any country you can think of (as is of course the case now in all major cities around the world).

The thing that has appealed to me about Vietnamese food is that it is healthy.  They fry stuff enough, but one can use coconut oil, and mostly they boil and steam.  My American doctor told me I would be diabetic by now if I hadn't moved to Vietnam.  I don't know but it's an interesting thought.

One thing I've noticed here -- if you hire someone here you hire the family (if you allow it), so that if the housekeeper wants a day off, she sends her sister or daughter or whatever.  That sort of job is a family enterprise.

10:45 am, Monday, November 25, 2013

Morality and abortion

I am having a hard time figuring out how this and "G+" work together if at all.  I seem to have to post the same on both.  The interface needs work but I guess over time I will get use to it.  I also can't figure out without leaving the system to store a copy on my hard drive.

I got an email today from my brother about how the new medical care law is going to force businesses to offer insurance for abortion and abortifacients (sp?) on the health insurance they offer, which apparently some people find moral objection to.  I objected to this a bit: it should not be the employer's decision.  If the employee does not want to utilize the benefit, that is their right, but I don't think the employer should be able to force it not available.

Whatever, and I tend to doubt the information was complete since it was so one-sided.  Still, the question arises to what extent authorities (government, employers, institutions, etc.) should be able to enforce moral views on those within them.  The immediate answer is no, morality is a personal matter.

This has trouble arising from the fact that morality and criminality get confused.  Morals is what is "right," criminality is what a duly constituted entity (legislature) has decided will be unlawful.  Should this entity consider morals in its consideration?

Most murders, for example, are clearly immoral.  They are also criminal.  Are they criminal because they are immoral?  I would say they are criminal because society needs to have them criminal, and that morality is not an issue.

Many base, or at least think they base, their moral standards on their religion.  When this is the case the principle of separation of religion and the state adds more strength to the notion that in passing criminal statues the legislature needs to stay away from religious considerations, although reading the debates on the subject it is clear that they don't.  I would say that a law that clearly was passed (reading its history of enactment) mainly on moral and religious grounds should be overturned on court review for that very reason, even if it passes muster as being needed for practical reasons.  They can go back and do it again.

Personally I would never have an abortion, although being a gay male that is kinda irrelevant.  I would encourage a woman contemplating one to be very, very sure.  It is not  murder (the developing fetus is in no way a human being -- this is just silly -- and arguments about "potential" are disingenuous rationalizations.  That said, the effects on the mother, both medically and psychologically, throughout her life, need to be thought about, as well as social considerations.

My immediate reaction would be to ban late-term abortions for this reason alone, as well as the fact that the fetus is by then approaching human status.  However, a "health of the mother" exception would be needed, and I can see this loophole being abused, leading to all sorts of litigation that we are better off without, so such a ban is probably unwise.