Christmas inside a homeless shelter

As I write this, I am in a room at the local homeless shelter. I am not a client.  However, I spend several hours weekly teaching four classes, eating meals with them, and generally hanging out.

I asked a few homeless clients what it feels like to have no home to go to for the holidays. A mother of three told me, "If it wasn't for this shelter, we would be in my car or on the streets this Christmas, which is no place for my little ones."

Another woman chimed in: "My husband divorced me and now these (shelter) people are my family, even for the short time we are here." 

A contrasting comment came from a young man: "I'm a felon, and I'm upset because can't go the 90 miles to see my family. Because of my parole, I can't go more than 50 miles away."

One of my joys is to see the glistening eyes of the children, as the tree goes up and the brightly colored lights are turned on. The excitement builds as gifts are added. It is also fun to see the kids dive into the meals, which are provided by contributions. After supper, they run into the playroom to watch the 26th showing of Shrek.

Yes, the shelter is a happy home to be in when you don't have one of your own.

Kill him or try him?

Anwar al-Awlaki has vowed to kill Americans. He is tied to al Qaeda and urges his followers to fight the Devil. The U.S. considers him dangerous.

Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen, born in New Mexico. Yet the Obama administration is seeking to incinerate him with a drone attack in Yemen, his hiding place.


The argument for his “offing” is obvious: he has turned against his country and sided with our sworn enemies. He seeks our destruction. Thus, authorities believes Awlaki deserves assassination.


However, there is another side to this “obvious” solution. Americans have loathed this termination action when done to us. Our constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Thus there seem to be a limit to what we are allowed to do to an American no matter how horrible his actions.


A lead editorial in the Nov. 10, 2010 issue of the Los Angeles Times summarizes the argument: “One difference between the United States and al Qaeda…is that in this country, we live under the rule of law….”


What is your view? Is the Obama administration right in its position? Or is Awlaki be shielded from termination by his American-born status? In this position, he should be hauled into court and tried as a danger to his own country and receive the punishment due him. This is more the American way.

Just in time for Halloween

Craig Venter created some kind of life in his laboratory recently. The geneticist produced the world's first synthetic living cell.


Could such a creation lead to intentional or accidental mutations, yielding a Jurassic Park of bizarre Halloweenish characters? Venter says he hopes to design cells that will produce medicines, absorb greenhouse gases and reduce oil dependency.  Still, no one seems to be clear on the potential risks of the new scientific development.


Where does this “almost life” entity go in future research and experimentation? What sort of blend of man and machine can come forth in future weeks and months? Should we be fearful or should ethical scientists monitor future breakthroughs for us?


Nancy Gibbs, in Time magazine, comments that Venter’s bombshell “revived the oldest of ethical debates over whether scientists were playing God.”  Fortunately, there is yet time for ethicists to draw a line in the sand. Should we find a boundary for this breakthrough beyond which we will not venture?  President Obama has weighed in putting his bioethics commission to work.

What do you think? Do we continue down the path toward creating life forms or should we stop before science takes us beyond any moral control?

Politics and values

Roy Ashburn, a conservative Republican state senator in California, was arrested while leaving a gay bar, then driving off drunk. Interestingly, Ashburn maintained a firm anti-gay voting record. For instance, he voted against legislation permitting gays to marry and was against making May 22 Harvey Milk Day.

The man known for his anti-gay rhetoric was caught in a gay bar. He had little choice but to confess in a radio interview, “I am gay.”


So here is the dilemma: Should Ashburn vote according to his constituencies’ political views regardless of his own, or should he vote his own values regardless of the views of his people? The Sacramento Bee reported that Ashburn, “who has consistently voted against gay-rights measures, said his votes were a reflection of how the majority of voters in his conservative district would have wanted him to vote.”


Here are the questions for us:


*  Is such a position hypocritical?
*  Can a politician hide his views while serving the needs of his people? If he does, is it ethical?
*  Should his votes reflect the wishes of the people in his district? If not, should the legislator move to an area that accommodates his gay lifestyle?


What do YOU think?

Should your doctor be your Facebook friend?

We have witnessed the explosion of Facebook, which now has some half a million followers. We are encouraged to reach out and include everyone we know as Facebook friends. But is there a boundary? In social networking, are there people in our lives who are not appropriate “friends”?

So here is the ethical question for us. Should you ask your physician to be your Facebook friend? Is there a professional distance to be protected with your doctor or even your minister, professor, and psychologist? A recent article in the Los Angeles Times names the doctor question as a dilemma of medical ethics when it comes to Facebook.

Some would argue that this familiarity might be enough to request permission to add a professional as a friend. Someone may argue, “We have a casual and informal relationship, so I believe it’s appropriate.” Would this be reason enough?

Before you answer, consider this: The professional person in question may have access to your other friends and their comments. If your professional friend viewed certain contents on your page, you might become embarrassed.
What about your comment section? What might this professional write? How much personal information do you expect him or her to access on your page?

Our society encourages us to reduce all persons to the same level, so that everybody is friends with everybody else. More so, we should know much about everybody’s business.

So the ethical question is this: Are there certain professional persons whose office demands privacy, and we give it to them out of respect? We do not invade their space. Or do we seek to be friends with all on an informal and casual manner?

Which side do you believe is ethically correct and why?

Decisions, decisions, decisions

For a long time the dilemmas of right and wrong have fascinated me. We encounter choices often that force us to choose what seems morally right against ethical wrong. Examples occur frequently in the news. On this site, I’ll often discuss hotly debated topics from headline news, making sure to set up each side’s arguments/positions.Here’s where you come in.

I’d like to hear your opinions. If you feel strongly about one side of the issue, I want to know why. This is an interactive site, so don’t be shy about adding your comments. Just be respectful of all opinions posted here.

Another post might explore foreclosures -- homeowners who walk away from their “underwater” mortgage, leaving the bank with properties owing many thousands of dollars. And is it ethical to seek to create life in a test tube, even if it’s not human life?

Is it right for a parent to encourage a 16 year-old girl to sail around the world alone?I hope you will enjoy responding. Be sure to include your reasons. Don’t hesitate to suggest topics for further discussion. I want us to have some fun with this.