Human

I was just reading me some Fred Clark, who is so very good at reminding us of what’s important:

I’m still astonished that that monthlong anti-empathy campaign really happened — astonished that people said such things in public, using their real names, imagining or pretending that the rest of us imagine or pretend, as they do, that selfishness is a virtue. No one has greater foolishness than this, they said, to put oneself at risk or inconvenience for anyone else.

If they were right, then then the judge’s final act was wrong.

If Rand was right, then John Roll was a fool.

If Rand’s disciples, giddy with their newfound political influence, are right, then there is nothing heroic or admirable about his daring sacrificial act, nothing virtuous about his courageous emulation of the act he had just celebrated that same hour in church.

And so we know that they are not right.

We see with utter clarity that Rand and the Randians and the anti-empathy squad cannot possibly be right because we look and we see and we know that John Roll’s final act was heroic and admirable, courageous and good — a reminder, a proof, that selfishness and cowardice are never virtues. All that Galtian, Randian nonsense evaporates. It cannot withstand the example of one who chose to give love give love give love give love give love give love give love give love give love …

Nothing new here — nothing novel or innovative or unusual. But worth repeating, I think. In any case, it was something I needed to repeat after firing up the computer this morning to find that the artists and the saints had conspired against me, teaming up to remind me what this world is about.

Love dares you. Mm ba ba de.