Being Autonomous

Sunday, October 11, 2015

They Love Pretending At Vox.com

In a previous post, I wrote about a ridiculous article at vox.com by Amanda Taub, in which she attempted to pretend that 'political correctness' does not exist. That article was fascinating, in that Taub demonstrated the falsity of her own premise.

Here is another article at vox.com, from January 2015, co-written by Amanda Taub and Max Fisher, which has the same delusional quality, and, again, demonstrates the falsity of their premise.

In this article, entitled 'Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia', Fisher and Taub hope to get readers to equate, in their effects on free speech, the many murders committed by Muslims, with the threats Vox.com (among others) has received via social media for reporting on what they call 'Islamophobia' --

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats

Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia

Updated by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub on January 14, 2015, 2:27 p.m. ET

We were glad that Vox decided to publish the cartoons of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Though their portrayal of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed has offended many Muslims, they are an important part of the story and readers have a right to see them. We were also glad that we covered the cartoons critically as well as sympathetically, praising them on the grounds of free speech and satire.

The decision of American media organizations to publish or not publish the cartoons has typically been framed of one of bravery or cowardice, based on the assumption that publishing invites physical risk from some number of the 2.6 million Muslim-Americans who will take offense and perhaps action. Vox.com was praised on MSNBC for its bravery, even though this purported risk did not actually enter into our calculus, and other outlets have presented their decision to publish as a way to defy the Islamist radicals who threaten free speech.

Writers at Vox have indeed been bombarded with threats for our Charlie Hebdo coverage. But not one of those threats has come from a Muslim or in response to publishing anti-Islam cartoons. Revealingly, they have rather all come from non-Muslims furious at our articles criticizing Islamophobia.
...

It is interesting to note that Taub and Fisher claim that the 'purported risk did not actually enter into our calculus', in regard to republishing the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons, while at the same time they claim to be 'glad that Vox decided to publish the cartoons'. This begs the obvious question, if they did not believe there was a risk, or they were completely indifferent to it, why would they be glad that the cartoons were republished? In other words, what is it that they were proud of, or glad about, if they did not believe there was a risk, or they did not believe the risk was worthy of real concern? (I emphasize republish, to remind readers that vox.com has done nothing original here — they are commenting on the work of others, well after the fact. 'Charlie Hebdo' took the risk, not vox.com. It seems like some of the writers at vox.com think they can acquire courage vicariously, by reporting on, and criticizing the work of others.)

Of course, the lead paragraphs quoted above from the Fisher and Taub article are nonsense. The only reason the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons are interesting at all, is because they mock and provoke a large group of religious fundamentalists who regularly resort to violence. Have you seen any uproar regarding 'Doonesbury' or 'Marmaduke'? And do you wonder why not?

The contradiction is obvious — if denunciations of Islam for the repeated acts of violence coming from their followers is an indication of an irrational fear of Islam — i.e. a phobia — then why would any writer claim some sort of pride for publishing the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons? That is, if Islam poses no threat, then how is publishing cartoons which mock Islam an act of courage?

And it should come as no surprise, that later in the article, Fisher and Taub give a fairly detailed description of their view of the 'arithmetic of the risk', which supposedly did not enter into their 'calculus'. So they thought through the 'calculus', but then decided that thinking through it did not constitute an 'entering into our calculus' --

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats

...
Receiving threats of any kind forces journalists to go through the calculation of whether it's likely that they could lead to real harm, and weigh that against the value of writing more on the subject in question. Any journalist or activist who has written or spoken publicly about a controversial subject will be familiar with the arithmetic of threats and fear. Add the value of speaking out, subtract the costs of silence. Multiply by the likelihood that the threats are empty, divide by the chance that they are not.

In our case, that arithmetic works out. The people who threaten us are crazies and there is no indication that they are representative of any greater whole or are considering doing any more than sending an email. But we are not the only outlet being targeted, and receiving dozens of threatening emails can have a real effect on journalists, even if we suspect the threats will come to nothing.
...

Obviously, the second sentence in the last paragraph quoted above should have been the focus of the article.

Notice that the 'crazies' that Fisher and Taub are referring to here as an ultimately harmless minority, are what they earlier describe as 'anti-Muslim extremists' who characterize 'Islamophobia'.

Let that sink in for a minute.

So let's summarize, to drive the point home. Fisher and Taub wrote an article dealing with a group of people who were gunned down by Islamic religious fanatics with automatic weapons (the 'Charlie Hebdo' attack), and in their article they emphasize social media threats which were received from 'anti-Muslims' in response to the reporting on 'Charlie Hebdo' in general, but which threats they then dismissed as giving 'no indication that they are representative of any greater whole or are considering doing any more than sending an email.'

In short, should not that be the real point? That is, that most religions have violent fanatical elements, but currently Islam presents an especially grave danger, since its followers are so willing to commit violent atrocities as a supposed defense of their religion — whereas others (like the supposed 'anti-Muslims' Fisher and Taub mention) leave it at sending threatening emails.

Begrudgingly, near the end of the article, Fisher and Taub actually acknowledge that shooting someone with a gun is much more serious than an email threat --

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7541095/charlie-hebdo-muslims-threats

...
This is not to argue that the threat from Islamist extremism doesn't exist; as the attacks in Paris demonstrated, this threat is all too real, and has included the actual murders of 17 people, something far beyond the danger of mere email threats.
...

But of course, this begs the obvious question (apart from why they wrote the article to begin with) —

If 'this threat is all too real', as Fisher and Taub wrote in the paragraph quoted above, why do they repeatedly refer to critics (including in the title of their article) as having a phobia — i.e. Islamohphobia?

Here are some more news events to drive home the point that 'this threat is all too real'. Those with sympathies for the article written by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub quoted from above, would do well to study these, to remind themselves that devout Muslims are willing to do much worse than send threatening emails, or even shoot people —

This site chronicles Islamic violence —
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

A professor of archaeology is beheaded for refusing to cooperate with ISIS —
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/18/middleeast/isis-executes-antiquities-expert/

ISIS teens ('caliphate cubs') execute Syrian soldiers before crowds at a Palmyra ruin —
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149469/Slaughter-amphitheatre-ISIS-executioners-brutally-shoot-dead-25-Syrian-regime-soldiers-bloodthirsty-crowds-ancient-Palmyra-ruin.html

A child (ISIS teen) beheads a Syrian soldier —
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/isis-posts-video-child-beheading-syrian-soldier-article-1.2295914

ISIS blows up a baby as part of a training exercise —
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-blown-up-baby-terror-6059342

ISIS drowns 5 prisoners in a cage —
http://nypost.com/2015/06/24/new-video-shows-isis-slowly-drowning-prisoners-in-a-cage/

ISIS executes 5 mothers and their children by burning them to death —
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154672/Iraqi-tribal-chief-recalls-horror-women-children-burnt-death-ISIS-militants-five-brave-mothers-refuse-allow-children-child-soldiers.html

Boko Haram executes 26 civilians by slitting their throats —
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/haram-slit-throats-26-civilians-chad-150708171934359.html

Sunday, September 20, 2015

A Massively Politically Correct Denial of Political Correctness

... For the anointed, it is desperately important to win, not simply because they believe that one policy or set of beliefs and values is better for society, but because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of the anointed on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with campus speech codes and "political correctness" being prime examples of a spreading pattern of taboos. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions—the national memory—as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies. ...
— Thomas Sowell, 'The Vision Of The Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy', 1995, p.252

'Politically correct' is generally defined as a kind of conformity regarding opinions on political or social issues.
Here is a definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ —

politically correct

adjective
: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Or, consider this defintion from http://dictionary.reference.com/ —

politically correct

adjective
1. marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.

And here is an article at https://www.britannica.com/ that gives an overview of the term 'political correctness' --

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-correctness

political correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation. The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators from across the political spectrum. The term has often been used derisively to ridicule the notion that altering language usage can change the public’s perceptions and beliefs as well as influence outcomes.

The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.

...

The Britannica article quoted above claims that the first use of the term came from Marxist-Leninist communists after the Russian Revolution in 1917, to describe adherence to the party line.

Now consider this article on vox.com, from January 2015, entitled 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' —
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

In this day and age, it is to be expected that when an article purports to demonstrate anything, it will likely demonstrate the opposite. And the article 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' is a fantastic demonstration of that phenomena.

To any even barely insightful observer of modern life, the title of the article is obviously false. That is, how can any remotely reasonable person take stock of a world that is dominated by slavish conformity and moral cowardice, and not think the title 'The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist' is a ridiculous absurdity?

Political correctness does not exist? Really?

Well, we need not wonder about the validity of the author's premise for long, since she gives us a healthy dose of what she claims does not exist a few paragraphs in —

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

The truth about "political correctness" is that it doesn't actually exist

Amanda Taub January 28, 2015, 4:00 p.m. ET

...
An example from outside of Chait's article makes it easy to see how that technique works in practice. I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism. (Miller, in fact, claimed that it was literally fake, an issue trumped up by a "rich member of the Oneida tribe.")

That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect. Miller isn't engaging with critics of the Redskins name by considering why they find it hurtful, and offering his basis for disagreement — he's dismissing the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion.
...

Notice the extreme asinine presumptuousness here — Amanda Taub, the author of the vox.com article quoted above, thinks that because she personally views a name as racist, or hurtful, or disrespectful (or whatever), that makes it the valid subject of a public debate. To accomplish what? Everyone has a right to denounce a sports team owner (or anyone else), for whatever reason they wish, but they do not have the right to initiate force against them because they find them offensive — in this case, to force them to change a team name.

Taub gives every indication that she believes she has made a convincing argument in the quote above, by stating her belief that a particular name is hurtful to a particular group of people, and so this somehow places a burden on those who are convinced that her belief is not worthy of consideration.

Reading the paragraphs quoted above should make one wonder how many people today are capable of pointing out the obvious fact that Amanda Taub made no argument. Taub expressed a trite, superficial opinion — that a name is racist because she does not like it — and she expects her statement to be treated as if it is especially convincing, when it has no substance.

Stating a belief is not a defense of that belief — to defend a belief you must explain why it is contradictory or irrational to disagree.

In the quote below, Taub states explicitly that 'there's no such thing as "political correctness"', while at the same time she provides (without a hint of sarcasm) the essential characteristic of what it means to be politically correct — the demand for conformity to a supposed norm based on a subjective preference, i.e. groupthink —

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

...
First things first: there's no such thing as "political correctness." The term's in wide use, certainly, but has no actual fixed or specific meaning. What defines it is not what it describes but how it's used: as a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue.

Chait identifies a long list of disputes that he describes as examples of "p.c." demands that are hurting mainstream liberalism. But calling these concerns "political correctness" is another way of saying that they aren't important enough to be addressed on their merits. And all that really means is that they're not important to Jonathan Chait.
...

This is beyond parody, in that Taub unwittingly states the reason that the issues she is raising should not be taken seriously — they are determined by subjective opinion, rather than objective fact. Taub's statement is beautifully contradictory and just another example of Orwellian double think — according to Taub, her opinion should trump all others, and require action from others, because she says so. In other words, as long as one person is upset about anything, it is important, even if no one was harmed, and regardless of how many others disagree.

Good for you Amanda, in stating that you think calling a team the 'Redskins' is racist and hurtful to Native Americans — but personal opinions alone, regardless of how many agree, present no valid justification for changing the name of a team (or anything else, for that matter). Even if the charge of "political correctness on overdrive" by the team's owner were false, this subject would still not be worthy of debate, because no one has the right to force others to conform to their views on what language can be used, even if it is insulting or can be perceived as racist. That is, the team owner has every right to 'dismiss the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion' — whether it is or not. Why? Because individual rights cannot be violated with language that conveys no intent to do harm — individual rights can only be violated with the initiation of force or fraud.

In short, this incredibly painfully obvious question is being begged here —

Why should one or more individuals be allowed to control the behavior of others, simply because of their claim to having been insulted?

Does any rational person really want to live in a world where every claim of an insult can bring some kind of legal sanction or penalty? Those who answer yes to this question are simply not being creative enough in imagining how they might become a victim of their own desire.

If you think a particular business practice is offensive — like the marketing strategy of a professional football team — then do not patronize that business, and try to convince others not to as well (if you really think that is worth your time). But do not be a presumptuous nitwit, and pretend that you are fighting a moral crusade in attempting to force others to use only that language that you approve of.

And notice that the names of football teams are normally a kind of superlative. That is, the team names normally refer to an animal or group of people with unusual toughness or agility, which are the qualities needed to compete against an adversary in a hard physical competition (like a professional football game) — e.g. 'the Vikings', 'the Falcons', 'the Eagles', 'the Giants', 'the Rams', etc.

So, does anyone really think the name 'Redskins' was chosen to be derogatory — or are those raising this issue simply expressing their desire to control others?

To those Native Americans that Amanda Taub is pretending to speak for, one should only say: 'If you are upset about the name of a sports team, you have a much bigger problem than you know. Good Luck.'

And notice how Taub unwittingly trivializes the actual harassment of particular individuals by bringing such harassment into her discussion of political correctness. It seems that Taub's moral sensibility is so myopic and distorted, she cannot differentiate between legitimate harm — a violation of an individual's rights in an actual crime — and one or more individuals being upset because others refuse to view them in a particular way.

For example, consider these descriptions Taub provides in her criticism of the term 'politically correct' —

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

...
Look at Chait's own examples. Trans women who protest definitions of "women" as "people with vaginas" aren't merely bellyaching about terminology — they're people on the margins of a group making legitimate demands for inclusion. Women of color who point out the many ways in which white feminists overlook issues that affect minority women aren't engaging in race-based arguments just for the fun of it, they're pointing out that the feminist movement had promised to protect their interests, but was in fact ignoring them.
...

The war with reality that is revealed by such statements is truly fascinating. Notice how Taub, in her denunciation of the term political correctness, combines in a single paragraph (again, without a hint of sarcasm), one group of people who are upset because others refuse to ascribe a gender characteristic to them which they do not have, and another group which has likely faced discrimination. Trans women 'making legitimate demands for inclusion'? Inclusion into what? Should actual women, with all the physical characteristics that a typical woman has, give inclusion to a male, simply because he wants to be treated like a woman? This is obviously completely absurd — Taub implies that a physical genetic characteristic, defined at birth, is an arbitrary social convention that can be simply defined out of existence.

And even more, notice that in Taub's reference to 'women of color', she makes no mention of any actual discrimination that the individuals from such a group may have suffered. Instead, Taub mentions an interest group that supposedly did not show enough concern for their plight — as if a particular interest group has no legitimate right to focus on whatever it wants, and, as if the first group is prevented from forming its own interest group because it is being ignored by another.

But even worse, as further demonstration of Taub's moral confusion, later in the same article she describes individuals who were singled out and targeted with death threats — as if somehow such examples are even remotely on a par with the name of a sports team, or a man who wishes to be viewed as a woman —

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/28/7930845/political-correctness-doesnt-exist

...
Take, for instance, a phenomenon that actually and demonstrably restricts the free exchange of ideas: the harassment of women online. It is a depressing fact of life that women who discuss controversial subjects publicly are often targeted by harassers who want to silence them. (As are many other groups, of course.) And yet, bizarrely, women's requests for safety online are often dismissed as "politically correct" threats to free speech, rather than as a way to promote it.

Last January, Amanda Hess wrote about the "trolls" who pursued her in response to her writing, including one account that had been set up for the express purpose of tweeting death threats at her. Anita Sarkeesian posted a list of the harassing tweets she received during an ordinary week last December, a never-ending mishmash of the words "kill," "whore," "bitch," "fuck," and "slut." Megan McArdle has written about her experiences with this kind of vitriol. So has Lindy West. And Jill Filipovic. And me.
...

If it is true that naming a professional sports team 'The Redskins' is as bad as singling out a particular individual and harassing them relentlessly with death threats, then such harassment cannot be any worse than giving a professional sports team a supposedly offensive name.

That is the inevitable consequence of the demand that a particular action be treated with the same importance as a more serious action with much graver consequences — grave consequences are trivialized by definition, when they are given no more consideration than trivial consequences. To any reasonable person, that should be offensive.

In short, no one can have it both ways — if you demand that a triviality becomes so important that it must be part of a public debate (as Taub has done), you, by definition, have made other issues that justify greater concern, trivial.

As a simple practical matter, why would any rational person wish to do this?

With all the death and destruction in the world, do people like Amanda Taub really want to waste everyone's limited time with discussions about the names of sports teams, or whether or not a group of men feel insulted, because others refuse to treat them like they are female?

In any case, it is no surprise that a person who wishes to make the name of a sports team the subject of public debate, would be offended by, and dismissive of, derogatory uses of the term 'politically correct' to refer to such a politically correct view.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Jon Stewart And His Audience Were Full of ...

Here is a ReasonTV video highlighting a few of Jon Stewart's sloppy inconsistencies from 'The Daily Show' —

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKXWDV2tVAo

Here is Peter Schiff describing the hatchet job the Daily Show did on an interview he did with the show —

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LNP-yXXUc

And, of course, it is not difficult to find asinine comments like those quoted below, in response to the ReasonTV video above, which indicate that many people believe that one can say anything they want, however inaccurate, regarding real news events, as long as one claims or pretends to be a comedian — and while at the same time acting as if such comments and criticisms deserve to be taken seriously —

Jon Stewart is a comedian. His show was never meant as serious news reporting. The fact that he was often more accurate than the actual news just tells us what the state of the news shows in America is.

I always thought Stewart was a comedian, pointing out modern political absurdities. Now I go to find out he is a "talking head" pundit. Who knew?

And here is a Jon Stewart fan who thinks that one can point out 'how ridiculous certain things are' by making false statements (or 'half truths', as this fan calls them). Notice that this fan explicitly states that it was never appropriate to take anything Stewart said 'as fact at all', or to view Stewart's show as 'legitimate' —

It's comedy! It doesn't bother me that Stewart shifts positions and tells half truths. He's trying to get a laugh and point out how ridiculous certain things are. The fact people take what he says as fact at all says more about them than Stewart. Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember when Stewart's show wasn't veiled in some mythical legitimacy but damn!

Nothing Jon Stewart said should have been taken as fact? Really?
Jon Stewart's show should never have been viewed as legitimate? Really?

I doubt Jon Stewart would appreciate those characterizations.

It seems pretty obvious that Stewart was trying to get laughs, but it seems especially unlikely that he would hope and expect that no one would take anything he said as the truth.

And here is a comment from a Stewart fan to another commenter who criticized Stewart's show for the extent to which they would go 'to get a cheap laugh out of the audience'. Notice how the second commenter implies that nothing on Stewart's show was 'real news', even though 'The Daily Show' was dominated by clips from real news organizations (like Fox News), and that Stewart made it a point to show where those news organizations had inaccuracies in some piece of reporting —

Most people who watch The Daily Show have no idea how often they tell half truths and twist stories just to get a cheap laugh out of the audience. ...

" ... people who watch The Daily Show have no idea"
You mean they think it's real news? Just like libertarians think it's real news? What a bunch of morons!

Well, it is pretty safe to say, that Stewart did not consider episodes like the one below to be 'fake news', or that viewers should not have taken his comments during this segment as fact, in contradiction to the previous comment above. This segment, as just one example, is completely nonsensical when viewed in that way, since the whole point of the segment is to mock the questionable facts of an actual news organization. If Stewart's comments are meant to be taken as 'fake news' or not 'as fact at all', as many of his fans insist, then such segments are just pathetic stupidity, rather than a real mocking criticism of a news organization. That is, it isn't the least bit funny, if the events did not actually happen, and Stewart's comment are not actually true —

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/9up6u7/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-better-call-foul

The point here is not whether or not you believe every word Jon Stewart says, or that he should always be right (unlikely, even for the most conscientious journalist) — the point is that his show was clearly commenting on real news (i.e. stuff that actually happened), and he clearly had some expectation that viewers would not treat everything about the show as false — as much as many Jon Stewart fans want to excuse his sloppiness with that bizarre rationalization.

In fact, beginning at about 4:10 in 'The Daily Show' video above, Jon Stewart clearly states that his show does not lie, or even distort. Here is a short transcription of Stewart's statements from the video above, that are in direct contradiction to many of the comments from 'The Daily Show' fans —

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/9up6u7/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-better-call-foul

...
But see, the little game that they play here is: the only reason the right looks bad is that these guys are unfair liars to us.
...
My point is, we don't lie, we don't distort. We actually have a fella who works in the building who uses every fiber of his being to prevent us from doing so, that moral bastard, that ...
...
The point is, on the right, they're pretending that our truthfulness, is what's really important to them, which ironically is not true. What matters to the right is discrediting anything that they believe harms their side.
...

Of course, Jon Stewart's fans will likely pretend that his statement that his show does not distort, was just comedy too, regardless of how emphatically he makes the claim.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

Rick Warren's Broken Moral Compass

Rick Warren is a Christian pastor and the bestselling author of the book 'The Purpose Driven Life', which had reportedly sold more than 30 million copies back in 2007.

Consider Warren's view of the Christian Bible, given by this quote from 'Day 24' of 'The Purpose Driven Life', entitled 'Transformed by Truth' --

I must accept its authority. The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life: the compass I rely on for direction, the counsel I listen to for making wise decisions, and the benchmark I use for evaluating everything. The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life.

Now consider Warren's view of what it means to 'surrender to God', given by this quote from 'Day 10' of 'The Purpose Driven Life', entitled 'The Heart of Worship' (italics added) --

What it means to surrender. Surrendering to God is not passive resignation, fatalism, or an excuse for laziness. It is not accepting the status quo. It may mean the exact opposite: sacrificing your life or suffering in order to change what needs to be changed. God often calls surrendered people to do battle on his behalf. Surrendering is not for cowards or doormats. Likewise, it does not mean giving up rational thinking. God would not waste the mind he gave you! God does not want robots to serve him. Surrendering is not repressing your personality. God wants to use your unique personality. Rather than its being diminished, surrendering enhances it.
...

Surrendering is best demonstrated in obedience. You say “yes, Lord” to whatever he asks of you. To say “no, Lord” is to speak a contradiction. You can’t call Jesus your Lord when you refuse to obey him. After a night of failed fishing, Simon modeled surrender when Jesus told him to try again: “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets.” Surrendered people obey God’s word, even if it doesn’t make sense.

Good luck to those who think it is possible to reconcile being rational with obeying that which does not make sense — or to reconcile maintaining one's own personality with being obedient.

Of course, the contradictions in the quotes above from Warren's book 'The Purpose Driven Life' are obvious. But that way of writing is on a par with the Bible, since so much of the Christian Bible cannot be reconciled with rational thought. Indeed, if you wish to actually follow the Bible, you must be willing to obey that which does not make sense, just as Warren wrote — but you then cannot also claim to be rational. That is, doing that which does not makes sense, as Warren wrote, is the essence of being irrational.

In a previous post I wrote about the massive, well known problem of evil for religious believers, and why there have been so many works on theodicy as a result. That post includes a sample of revolting passages from the Christian Bible —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/06/theodicy.html

Listed below are more revolting passages from the Christian Bible, which should also make any rational person wonder what exactly Rick Warren means when he says: 'The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life.' --

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Exodus 21:2 - 4 (you can own Hebrew slaves for six years — and possibly the slave's children forever)
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Leviticus 1:1 - 17 (perform animal sacrifices)
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

[... etc.]

Leviticus 20:9 (death for cursing your parents)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Leviticus 20:10 (death for adultery)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:11 - 12 (death for sex with family members)
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13 (death for homosexuality)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Numbers 15:32 - 36 (death for gathering sticks on the sabbath)
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Deuteronomy 20:12 - 17 (genocide)
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Matthew 5:17 - 18 (all the Old Testament is valid, and will be fulfilled)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Colossians 3:22 (slaves should obey their masters)
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

So much for the compass that Rick Warren relies on for direction.

The video below shows Chelsea Clinton questioning Rick Warren on same-sex marriage in December of 2012. The interview covers well trodden ground (as Warren points out), but Chelsea's avoidance of naming the problem with religious belief is much more fascinating than the topic of same-sex marriage itself, or that a devout Christian like Rick Warren comes down on that issuse on the side of the Bible, just as one would expect.

Here is how Chelsea stated the basic premise of her interview with Warren in her opening statements —

"For some people, they don't understand why that sense of compassion doesn't extend to equal marriage."

Well, if you have read the Bible, it isn't hard to understand why Christians oppose same-sex marriage.

Leviticus 20:13 is one of the clearest statements contained in the Christian Bible, and it states that homosexuals 'shall surely be put to death' —

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/50265085#50265085

Many might give praise to Chelsea for her questioning of Warren in this interview, as if she displayed some kind of courage in challenging him, but Chelsea's behavior here is just another typical display of politically correct cowardice. Why? Because she avoided the harder, extremely unpopular question, which is: 'Your belief system is based on a book that contains a long list of revolting, violent, and shockingly irrational passages, so why would you want anyone to follow it?'

Warren is justified in becoming somewhat frustrated, when he responds to Chelsea's pleading questions at one point by saying —

"What do they expect a Christian pastor to answer: 'I don't believe the Bible anymore' ?"

Chelsea does her best to dance around the issue with this response (Bill and Hillary should be proud) —

"No, but I think you can say that the Bible has one place in life, and the State has a different place in life."

Chelsea does not make her religious beliefs known in the interview, but one thing is clear — there is no way that she is going to criticize the source of Warren's beliefs, the Christian Bible. Instead of asking Warren why anyone should support a religion that views homosexuality as an abomination, Chelsea questions him as if he alone is somehow responsible for the widespread opposition to gay marriage.

Chelsea implies that the Bible should be rejected, without actually naming the issue. And notice that Warren has already redefined the Bible with his dramatically softened interpretation —

'... well, Jesus accepts all of us, he accepts a gay person, he accepts a straight person, he accepts all of us unconditionally ...'

This statement from Warren stands in direct contradiction to Leviticus 20:13, as well as many other Biblical passeges.

The statement from Leviticus 20:13 that something two consenting adults do with one another is an abomination, for which they 'shall surely be put to death', is as far from unconditional acceptance as one can get.

Given that people have always cherry-picked the Bible to suit themselves, and to give themselves the illusion that they are spiritual, or moral (or whatever), while they do not comply with the bulk of what the Bible actually says, it is to be expected that Christianity will continue to become more and more unintelligible. To a great extent, religious belief in general already is unintelligible, in that the vast majority of supposed religious believers have very little knowledge of what the founding religious texts actually say (pretending it does not matter), while they simultaneously claim to be living by the morals of those texts.

Warren deserves criticism for defending a blatantly irrational book with his claim that it must be 'the first and last word in my life', but religious liberals (as Chelsea Clinton seems to be) deserve just as much criticism for their cowardly and hypocritical attempts to also pretend that the Bible has value, while simultaneously criticizing any attempts to even barely follow it.

Rick Warren and Chelsea Clinton have more in common than they realize — the same broken moral compass.

Friday, July 3, 2015

The Likely Murder of Asia Bibi

Here is a portion of Chapter XV from the Pakistan Penal Code, 'OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION' --

https://archive.is/9pil
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html#f105

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

295.

Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class:
Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement as an insult to their religion. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

¹⁰⁶[

295-A.

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting Its religion or religious beliefs:
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the 'religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

]¹⁰⁶
¹⁰⁷[

295-B.

Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an:
Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.

]¹⁰⁷
¹⁰⁸[

295-C.

Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

. . .

It should come as no surprise that such laws would be exploited to target religious minorities in Pakistan (any non-Muslim). It is obvious that that is the only effect such laws can have, given that no individual suffers any harm from the destruction of a book or the condemnation of its contents (religious or not) — such laws legalize and sanction persecution for the expression of a minority opinion.

The Pakistani newspaper 'Dawn' reported in August of 2013 that no one has been executed as a result of the Pakistani blasphemy laws, but 51 people have been murdered after being accused, before their trials were over —

https://archive.is/uxZQ2
http://www.dawn.com/news/750512/timeline-accused-under-the-blasphemy-law

According to sources , 51 people accused of blasphemy were murdered before their respective trials were over. However, the death sentence has never been implemented.

The same story at the link above at 'Dawn' also states that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of blasphemy cases in Pakistan since 1986, when the blasphemy laws were added to Pakistan's Constitution. From 1986 to 2010, 1,274 people were charged with blasphemy, whereas prior to 1986 there were only 14 reported cases —

http://www.dawn.com/news/750512/timeline-accused-under-the-blasphemy-law

An estimated number of 1,274 people have been charged under the stringent blasphemy laws of Pakistan between 1986, from when they were included in the Constitution by General Zia ul Haq, until 2010.

Pakistan’s Penal Code Section dates back to pre-partition India when it was introduced in 1860. Section 295, better known as the Blasphemy Law, deals with religious offences and was meant to prevent religious violence. Prior to 1986, only 14 cases pertaining to blasphemy were reported.

In addition, 'Dawn' gives a timeline beginning in 1990 of a laundry list of some of the absurd Pakistani blasphemy cases. Consider the insane statement, in the second paragraph quoted below, from a 1992 judgement from the Pakistani judge Talib Hussain Baloch, who has the terrible distinction of being the first Pakistani judge to issue a death sentence for blasphemy. Baloch sentenced someone to death based on a single accusation that was directly contradicted by other witnesses —

http://www.dawn.com/news/750512/timeline-accused-under-the-blasphemy-law

Gul and his brother Bashir were arrested on charges of blasphemy but Bashir was released due to lack of evidence against him and after villagers went to the police station to protest the innocence of the Masih family. In court, out of three eye witnesses, only the complainant accused Gul of blasphemy while the other two denied that they had heard or seen him do anything blasphemous.

Despite that, judge Talib Hussain Baloch sentenced him to death in 1992, making his case the first in Pakistan where the accused was put on death row. Baloch said in his judgement, “since Sajjad Hussain (the accuser) is a young man of 21, a student of B.A. and a true Muslim with a beard on his face and a good outlook, I find no reason to disbelieve him.”

Bashir was unable to find a job after this incident and reports say that Gul was tortured in prison. He was eventually acquitted but had to seek asylum in Germany.

One of the blasphemy cases included in the long list provided by 'Dawn' is that of Asia Bibi. In November of 2010, at the age of 45, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by a Pakistani judge for the charge of blasphemy, as the result of an accusation from some Muslim women who were angry because Bibi, who is a Christian, drank from a village well — since Muslims consider Christians to be unclean.

Here is a CNN story regarding Asia Bibi's case from November of 2010. Notice that the Muslim cleric who filed the complaint against Asia Bibi was reported to have been overjoyed at hearing of Asia's death sentence — he is quoted as saying: 'Tears of joy poured from my eyes'. Also notice that many of the Pakistani villagers familiar with Asia's case think that Asia should be executed. So much for Islam being a religion of peace —

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6q_enbv-DM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/24/pakistan.christian/
https://archive.is/9JVyW

In August of 2013, Asia Bibi published a memoir of her ordeal, entitled 'Blasphemy: A Memoir: Sentenced to Death Over a Cup of Water' —
http://www.amazon.com/Blasphemy-Memoir-Sentenced-Death-Water/dp/1613748892

Here is a partial quote from Asia Bibi's memoir, in which she describes the events leading up to her arrest in June 2009 --

http://nypost.com/2013/08/25/sentenced-to-death-for-a-sip-of-water/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../pakistani-christian-woman-sentenced-death-blasphemy-...-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html

...
I’m the victim of a cruel, collective injustice.

I’ve been locked up, handcuffed and chained, banished from the world and waiting to die. I don’t know how long I’ve got left to live. Every time my cell door opens my heart beats faster. My life is in God’s hands and I don’t know what’s going to happen to me. It’s a brutal, cruel existence. But I am innocent. I’m guilty only of being presumed guilty. I’m starting to wonder whether being a Christian in Pakistan today is not just a failing, or a mark against you, but actually a crime.

But though I’m kept in a tiny, windowless cell, I want my voice and my anger to be heard. I want the whole world to know that I’m going to be hanged for helping my neighbor. I’m guilty of having shown someone sympathy. What did I do wrong? I drank water from a well belonging to Muslim women, using “their” cup, in the burning heat of the midday sun.

I, Asia Bibi, have been sentenced to death because I was thirsty. I’m a prisoner because I used the same cup as those Muslim women, because water served by a Christian woman was regarded as unclean by my stupid fellow fruit-pickers.

That day, June 14, 2009, is imprinted on my memory. I can still see every detail.

That morning I got up earlier than usual, to take part in the big falsa-berry harvest. I’d been told about it by Farah, our lovely local shopkeeper. “Why don’t you go falsa picking tomorrow in that field just outside the village? You know the one; it belongs to the Nadeems, the rich family who live in Lahore. The pay is 250 rupees.”
. . .

The sun was beating down, and by midday it was like working in an oven. I was dripping with sweat and I could hardly think or move for the suffocating heat. In my mind, I could see the river beside my village. If only I could have jumped into that cool water!

But since the river was nowhere near, I freed myself from my bushes and walked over to the nearby well. Already I could sense the coolness rising up from the depths.

I pull up a bucketful of water and dip in the old metal cup resting on the side of the well. The cool water is all I can think of. I gulp it down and I feel better; I pull myself together.

Then I start to hear muttering. I pay no attention and fill the cup again, this time holding it out to a woman next to me who looks like she’s in pain. She smiles and reaches out . . . At exactly the moment Musarat pokes her ferrety nose out from the bush, her eyes full of hate:

“Don’t drink that water, it’s haram!”

Musarat addresses all the pickers, who have suddenly stopped work at the sound of the word “haram,” the Islamic term for anything forbidden by God.

“Listen, all of you, this Christian has dirtied the water in the well by drinking from our cup and dipping it back several times. Now the water is unclean and we can’t drink it! Because of her!”

It’s so unfair that for once I decide to defend myself and stand up to the old witch.

“I think Jesus would see it differently from Mohammed.”

Musarat is furious. “How dare you think for the Prophet, you filthy animal!”

Three other women start shouting even louder.

“That’s right, you’re just a filthy Christian! You’ve contaminated our water and now you dare speak for the Prophet! Stupid bitch, your Jesus didn’t even have a proper father, he was a bastard, don’t you know that.”

Musarat comes over as though she’s going to hit me and yells: “You should convert to Islam to redeem yourself for your filthy religion.”

I feel a pain deep inside. We Christians have always stayed silent: We’ve been taught since we were babies never to say anything, to keep quiet because we’re a minority. But I’m stubborn too and now I want to react, I want to defend my faith. I take a deep breath and fill my lungs with courage.

“I’m not going to convert. I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Mohammed ever do to save mankind? And why should it be me that converts instead of you?”

That’s when the hatred bursts from all side. All around me the women start screaming. One of them grabs my bowl and tips the berries into her own. Another one shoves and Musarat spits in my face with all the scorn she can manage. A foot lashes out and they push me. Even when I run home, I can still hear them complaining.

Five days later, I went to work fruit picking in another field. I’ve almost filled my bowl when I hear what sounds like a rioting crowd. I step back from my bush, wondering what’s going on, and in the distance I see dozens of men and women striding along towards our field, waving their arms in the air.

I catch the cruel eyes of Musarat. Her expression is self-righteous and full of scorn. I shiver as I suddenly realize that she hasn’t let it go. I can tell she’s out for revenge. The excited crowd are closer now; they are coming into the field and now they’re standing in front of me, threatening and shouting.

“Filthy bitch! We’re taking you back to the village! You insulted our Prophet! You’ll pay for that with your life!”

They all start yelling:

“Death! Death to the Christian!”
...

Here is Asia Bibi's husband, Ashiq Masih, with two of his daughters, and the former Pakistani Minister of Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti --

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403773/Christian-woman-Asia-Bibi-jailed-Pakistan-using-Muslim-womens-cup...html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../pakistani-christian-woman-sentenced-death-blasphemy-...-muslim-neighbours-loses-appeal.html

The former Pakistani Minister of Minority Affairs in the photo above, Shahbaz Bhatti, was murdered in Islamabad on March 2, 2011, for defending Christians, and for being an advocate for reform of Pakistan's insane blasphemy laws. Bhatti is reported to have received death threats beginning in 2009, for speaking in defense of Christians —
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12617562
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/02/pakistan-minister-shot-dead-islamabad

And on January 4, 2011, the former governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, Salman Taseer, was murdered by one of his own security team members, also as a result of his opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for defending Asia Bibi —
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12111831

Here is Asia Bibi with Salman Taseer in 2010, not long before he was murdered --

http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-asia-bibi-waits-on-death-row-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-in-spotlight-as-deaths-...html

Here are Asia Bibi's daughters in 2010, with a picture of Asia --

http://nypost.com/2013/08/25/sentenced-to-death-for-a-sip-of-water/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2403773/Christian-woman-Asia-Bibi-jailed-Pakistan-using-Muslim-womens-cup...html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-asia-bibi-waits-on-death-row-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-in-spotlight-as-deaths-...html

Asia Bibi's three daughters, with a photo of Asia Bibi

Sadly, now it is being reported that Asia Bibi may not have long to live, since she is suffering from intestinal bleeding and is so weak she can barely walk —
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/asia-bibi-suffering-from-intestinal-bleeding-in-pakistan-prison-45516/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/Christian-woman-sentenced-death-...-five-years-imprisonment-left-intestinal-bleeding.html

This isn't surprising, given that it was previously reported that there is a price on Asia's head, and that she has repeatedly been beaten in prison —

http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-asia-bibi-waits-on-death-row-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-in-spotlight-as-deaths-...html

Enraged by what he heard, the cleric, Muhammad Salam, publicly denounced Bibi, inciting mobs across the district demanding her arrest. After five days, local police placed Bibi under arrest and in November 2010 she was found guilty in the district court and sentenced to death by hanging.

That wasn't enough for some. One cleric promised 500,000 rupees (about $6000) to anyone who would kill her in jail.

"I live in a confined cell," Bibi said in an interview with a Christian rights group in 2011. "I am allowed to go out for only 30 minutes every day and allowed to meet my family for one hour every Tuesday."

Bibi is given raw food so she can cook for herself for fears she might be poisoned - in 2011 a female prison guard at the jail was suspended after she tried to strangle Bibi - and she has reportedly suffered numerous beatings.

In her memoir, Asia Bibi was being much too polite when she referred to her accusers as 'my stupid fellow fruit-pickers' —
the word 'stupid' does not begin to do justice to this grotesque tribal savagery.

Even if Asia Bibi is acquitted and released from prison, she will have to live in hiding to avoid being murdered, unless she can somehow escape from Pakistan with her family, since not only does she have a price on her head, her family regularly receives death threats —
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31092447

It is a pity that those that could help raise awareness about the plight of some of Islam's victims, are too busy trying to be politically correct with claims that anyone who would dare criticize Islam is racist or bigoted.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Krugman's Obviously False Debt Spin

In the past, I've written numerous posts in response to Paul Krugman's nonsensical writing, in an attempt to expose him as a charlatan. Because Krugman is a devout Keynesian, he believes that government spending is always an unqualified positive, and an easy solution to all economic problems.

If you thank that is an exaggeration, watch Krugman in this interview from August, 2011, where he parrots Keynes in supporting government stimulus spending, with his explicit statement that the spending be on something that wastes resources and helps no one — that is, a military buildup for a fictitious alien invasion --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhMAV9VLvHA
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-moral-equivalent-of-space-aliens/

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better [off].

Paul Krugman's blog is dominated by content like the statement quoted above, which makes it little more than an endless stream of fallacies. Here is another typical example, from a Krugman post in February, 2015, where Krugman attempts to dismiss concerns about the mounting U.S. public debt --

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/debt-is-money-we-owe-to-ourselves/

Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves

Paul Krugman FEBRUARY 6, 2015 7:32 AM

Antonio Fatas, commenting on recent work on deleveraging or the lack thereof, emphasizes one of my favorite points: no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations. Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means, because as Fatas puts it, one person’s debt is another person’s asset; or as I equivalently put it, debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement that, I have discovered, has the power to induce blinding rage in many people.

Think about the history shown in the chart above. Britain did not emerge impoverished from the Napoleonic Wars; the government ended up with a lot of debt, but the counterpart of this debt was that the British propertied classes owned a lot of consols.

More than that, as Fatas points out, rising debt could be a good sign. Think of my little two-classes model of debt, where some people are less patient than others — perhaps (to step outside the model a bit) because they have better investment opportunities. Moving from a very limited financial system that doesn’t allow much debt to a somewhat more open-minded system should, in that case, be good for growth and welfare.

The problem with private debt is that we have good reason to believe that in very wide-open financial systems people get irrationally exuberant, lending and borrowing to an extent that they eventually realize was excessive — and that there are huge negative externalities when everyone tries to deleverage at once. This is a very big problem, but it’s not about generalized excess consumption.

And the problems with public debt are also mainly about possible instability rather than “borrowing from our children”. The rhetoric of fiscal debates has been, for the most part, nonsense.

Krugman's blog post quoted above hardly deserves comment — since it is so poorly written, the fallacies it contains should be obvious to almost anyone.

First, the title is obviously false — it is true that the largest portion of the U.S. public debt is held by government agencies (mainly Social Security), but a large portion of the U.S. debt is held by foreign nations. Here is part of a table from the U.S. Treasury's June 2015 Bulletin, showing the estimated ownership of U.S. Treasury Securities, from 2010 through March 2015. Notice that this table shows that 'foreign and international' owners (column 11) were holding about 34% of the total U.S. public debt in December of 2104 --

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/b2015-2.pdf (p. 43)
https://web.archive.org/web/.../https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/b2015-2.pdf

Table of Estimated Ownership of U.S. Treasury Securities, June 2015

And notice that China and Japan alone were holding over 13% of the U.S. public debt in March of 2015 --

http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt

Top Two Foreign Holders of U.S. Treasury Securities, 2014 - 2015

But regardless of the breakdown of the ownership of the U.S. public debt, Krugman's statement that 'debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement', is, rather, an obviously false statement. There is nothing about government debt in general that entails 'taxpayers owing it to themselves'. At a minimum, this would mean that all government debt securities are purchased by the government with tax revenue. This was never true, and it certainly is not true now.

But even more importantly, notice that even in the case of the Social Security Administration's past purchase of government treasuries with surplus payroll deductions — as an example of 'owing it to ourselves' — we do not 'owe it to ourselves', since current beneficiaries of government programs like Social Security and Medicare will not pay, nor will they even suffer any consequences of, the growing debt that is being generated in part to pay for their benefits — obviously, future taxpayers will, since current taxpayers will not live long enough.

So even under the assumption that the phrase 'owing it to ourselves' is simply meant to indicate government debt that was purchased with tax revenue, and so is held by government agencies (i.e. debt owned by U.S. taxpayers), that debt will still affect future taxpayers more than current taxpayers (especially given future interest rate increases). In short, Krugman's phrase — 'debt is money we owe to ourselves' — is a euphemism to disguise the unequal impacts of the debt between current and future taxpayers.

So how is it possible to justify Krugman's claim: 'no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations', when we know that the growing debt is certainly not helping future generations?

But what is truly perversely fascinating in this nonsensical 'we owe money to ourselves' talk, is that anyone would take this seriously — never mind a Nobel laureate economist.

I wrote about the absurdity of pretending you owe yourself money last year in this post —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2014/06/pretending-you-owe-yourself-hazard.html

In Krugman's blog post quoted above, he mentions that one person's debt is another person's asset — yes, but this is only true if there really are two different people. Your debt is not also your asset. So making the claim that your debt is your largest asset, is exactly the same as saying 'I'm broke'. All debt is a claim against future earnings, and government debt is a claim on the future earnings of taxpayers, regardless of the owner of that government debt. This is what makes the commonly heard comment that the Social Security 'trust fund' pays benefits so absurd — all the government 'trusts' that hold U.S. Treasuries are simply promises to collect future taxes (i.e. they are claims on future tax receipts), and so future taxpayers must pay, if those securities are ever to be redeemed in order to pay some government expense, like Social Security or Medicare benefit payments.

It is hard to believe that it is not obvious to people that they cannot also treat their debt as an asset, and that it should require an explanation as to why, but it must, since it is repeated ad nauseam — even by a Nobel laureate.

Making the claim that we 'owe it to ourselves' does nothing to mitigate a debt problem. The U.S. government 'trust funds' are an unfunded liability of U.S. taxpayers — that is, they are promises to collect payments from future taxpayers. And notice that this simple fact — which is determined by the U.S. Treasury securities held by the trusts (that's just how they work) — stands in direct contradiction to Krugman's claim that 'debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations'. The larger the U.S. debt grows — including the so-called 'trusts' — the larger the burden that will be borne by future taxpayers.

Here are more details on how the government trusts are a liability to U.S. taxpayers. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, you pay for the U.S. trust funds, they do not pay for you —
http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-trust-fund-tolls-for-thee.html

And notice the glaring contradiction in Krugman's comment that private lenders alone have a tendency to become 'irrationally exuberant'. I suppose this is his shorthand code to readers who wish to pretend that government requirements had nothing to do with the financial crisis of the Great Recession. This notion that governments are consistently rational and responsible, in contrast to the private sector, is so utterly ridiculous there is no reason to comment on it. Anyone who responds affirmatively to such a comment is simply expressing a blindness driven by a biased agenda. The crises, strife, and misery, caused directly by the world's governments are too widely well known to be worthy of mention.

To those who would now launch into a diatribe about the obvious harm that has been caused by private companies (no argument here), I would only say that your moral compass and your ability to measure harm are a bit off. Good luck.

Of course, this is consistent with Krugman's mantra that all government spending has some magical ability to create well being, whereas private sector spending or saving does not. That Krugman would be comfortable in repeating such a ridiculous claim, as well as 'Debt Is Money We Owe To Ourselves', is a testament to how insulated he is from any real criticism.

So much for the Nobel prize.