ACORN evidently has no problem with underage prostitution, tax fraud, or housing violations. That's not OK. They will advise you how to do them right. That's very not OK. What they don't show you here, but which shows up on the complete transcript, is that they also want you to pay a fee to find out about their housing assistance (which is also illegal).

What scum. And the Federal Government pays them lots of money, which they deny.

UPDATE: It's not just one office: same thing done in DC as was done in Baltimore. So far, the AP has picked up the Baltimore sting (and a number of minor papers picked it up from them, though not the New York Times or Washington Post or the other major government media), FOXNews has Baltimore and DC. is covering this. Somebody should be running fast with this: evidently, the original investigative team was smart enough to keep good records. ACORN is spinning as fast as it can.

Further Update: I'm not the only one who's noticed that the networks and the majors aren't covering it. The Washington Post has since quoted the AP on the subject: ridiculous failure.

I've had problems with this division periodically, and I finally have a form of the division I like: those who believe in moral complexity, and have five bases of moral instinct guiding their reason, and those who believe in only two bases to guide their reasoning and are famously in search of new things. Oddly enough, the theory was proposed by an atheist liberal, Jonathan Haidt, who is nonetheless eloquent on its consequences and problems.

Check out this video of a short talk on the subject, which is excellent, or see his many publications on moral foundations. Just as a quick preview, from his website on moral foundations (not the one with the papers), here are the five bases:

In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundaiton underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

...

The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity.


The talk referred to above is intriguing, and worth a second look. Do yourself a favor and click on it.

Readers are familiar with my comments that advisers on medical ethics not only think very poorly about their own discipline, but reach unethical conclusions and advocate them.

Here's my latest: a patient in Oregon, with insurance operated by the state health fund, was told that the state would pay for drugs for assisted suicide rather than the drugs necessary to save her life. After all, assisted suicide was miles cheaper, and would end all complaints about her care and the messiness of being sick. The problem is not unique to Oregon: others have noticed, and I'm sure that state cost experts are deeply interested.

The balrog in the woodpile here is depression. Depression is one of the few treatable psychological disorders (with therapy and/or medication), and its presence can induce people to despair of life. And that despair should not be respected as a "wish" but treated as the illness it represents.