"And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make."

This claim prompts at least two questions:

1) Can anyone name even two politicians holding major office who left that office early for a "higher calling" other than a political appointment, and not for reasons related to alleged criminal activity or personal/family health matters?

2) Does anyone know of a commentator on t.v. or radio who has asked some verson of the above question, and so holding Palin and those who support her decision to account?

The most bizzare element of this entire affair is Palin's unwillingness to give a reason for her actions.  She does not even identify the "higher calling" to which she now feels called.  She claims that she is following a path that many have already blazed ahead of her.  Yet, unless she can actually give examples of the "countless" others who have followed this path, only two conclusions seem to remain; either she is not being honest and some more traditional reason for leaving office is actually motivating her, or she has lost all sense of direction.

Here is the argument: 1) In order for moral analysis to make sense, in order for there to be a real distinction between good and bad, better and worse, there must be a real measure, or actualization, of moral truth.  2) Let us, for reasons to be clarified below, call this real measure of moral truth God.  3) The consequence of denying God's existence, then, is also denying the existence of a real measure of moral truth.  4) Denying the existence of a real measure of moral truth leaves only the individual to measure moral difference.  5) When only the individual can measure moral difference, the result is moral solipsism.  6) Moral solipsism renders the state of being morally good/bad/right/wrong a matter of individual measure, and therefore a matter of individual preference.  7) Morality reduced to individual preference is no morality at all.  8) Therefore, to deny the existence of God is also to deny the reality of any moral difference among actual or possible states of affairs.  The denial of God renders morality meaningless.

Now, some clarification.  We need a real measure of moral truth just like we need real measures of something like length.  If I asked you to measure a line in terms of zots, you would likely ask me how long a zot is.  If I told you it does not matter how long a zot is, that you could decide for yourself how long a zot is, you would likely wonder about the point of measuring the line in the first place.  Now, if I asked 50 people to measure the same line in terms of zots, and I told all fifty that each of them could decide for themselves how long a zot is, then I would likely get 50 different answers about the length of the line.  None of those measures could meaningfully be considered a true indication of the length of the line.  In fact, measuring the line would seem rather silly.  Measuring would be a solipsistic activity.

We are capable of measuring lines because we have real measures of length like the meter and the foot.  These are agreed upon distances.  Thus, some might object that we don't need God for a real measure of moral truth, only an agreed upon measure.  But such a comparison fails for a couple of reasons.  First, there is no agreed upon measure, and there likely will never be one.  Different people and different groups have different measures of moral truth, much like the different values for the zots discussed above.  Second, there is the problem of our fallibility.  The definition of a meter is strictly analytic, much likely the definition of a bachelor as an unmarried man.  Our fallibility regarding measurement would be found in our acts of measuring, not in our definition of the units of measure.  However, the measure of moral truth requires judgment, and in so far as we are capable of erroneous judgment, we would have to be able to be able to ask why any particular agreed upon judgment of moral truth (assuming one could be found) were true; thus, only raising again the question of what that measure of moral truth is.

So why call this real measure of moral truth "God"?  The answer lies in both the scope and status of any real measure of moral truth.  The scope must be anywhere and anytime in the universe.  The scope must be as vast as any possible place a moral agent could make a moral choice (thus, this measure would be as true for critters on another planet as for humans).  The status of the real measure must be infallible.  If the measure were fallible, one would have to ask how one could tell the difference between a true and a false measure, and this would be impossible if the measure itself were fallible.  If the measure must be infinite and infallible, that's enough (for now) to call the measure God.

The absence of real measure of moral truth results in solipsism because there is nothing left by which the individual can measure moral truth that is not itself capable of moral error.  All other measures of moral truth are themselves open to error (parents, friends, countries, cultures, political parties, etc.).  In order to make sense of these groups making moral errors, the measure of moral truth must be something other than them.  This line of reasoning is as old as Socrates's rebuttal of Thrasymachus in the Republic.  If I choose to follow the moral guidelines of another person or group, I do so either because I think the guidelines are more moral than others, in which case I must make sense of what it means for them to be more moral, or I do so out of mere preference.  Without a real measure of moral worth, choosing to follow any person, group, or cause is at best a matter of preference.  The choice itself cannot be said to matter in any moral way, and so morality itself becomes irrelevant.

One happy consequence of this argument being in some important way truth is that if a real measure of moral truth exists, the meaning of life is to live as much as possible in accordance with that measure of moral truth, to contribute to making real as much moral truth as possible.  Thus, life is meaningful even without an afterlife.  If my life comes to a complete, final, ontological ending, it still was a valuable and meaningful life it helped to realize moral truth.  All notions of the afterlife, likewise, are only meaningful in so far as they can be understood in terms of greater realizations of moral truth.  Here, I think the Buddhists are on to something important.

One last thought.  Just because a real measure of moral truth exists does not mean that any human can know what that measure is or what it implies with absolute confidence.  Rather, we must struggle and argue with and amongst ourselves regarding how best to advance moral truth.  Does this place us in the same position as those who were allowed to define the length of zots?  No, because in the case of zots, there was no real measure to approximate in the first place.  Without a real measure of moral truth, the notion of moral error becomes meaningless.

So, which is it, God or meaningless morality?

Instead, he commits to reducing the deficit by half before the end of his first term.  Not only is this a bold commitment, it is politically risky.  President Obama has now left himself vulnerable to an obvious attack by his future rivals should he fail in this commitment.  Obviously, he is aware of this risk and has performed his own political calculus that justifies taking this position.  Nonetheless, as note is taken of the GOP mockery of today's summit, one might also hope that more will note the boldness of the president's commitment.

Oh yeah, he also committed to working towarad a world without nuclear weapons.  Anyone else feeling a different political wind in the air?

But the real nightmare from last night was the new KFC promotion of BSG with the new "Frak Pack" of chicken whatevers.  Now, for those of you who know nothing about BSG, "frak" is the somewhat clever sci-fi equivalent of F- ck.  So, one would hear on the show lot's of "Frak you" and the occasional, "I need a good frak."  Now, this dialogue was not bothersome to me, and I thought it was a rather clever way to curse a blue streak on the sci-fi channel without getting bleeped out.

However, I was genuinely astonished when I saw a KFC commercial promoting BSG and offering a "Frak Pack" of chicken and offering prizes with various permutations of "Frak" printed on them.  Clearly, the folks at KFC would never promote products with F- ck either in their name or printed on something, nor would they say it over and over again on a commercial.  But, they clearly have no problem using its equivalent for all of these things.

I'm really not trying to be prudish here.  What bothers me is that both BSG and KFC clearly think that words are entirely irrelevant to the reality they convey.  KFC trades on the kindergarten rhyme of "Frak Pack," not caring what the words actually mean, and BSG feels free to write insane plots and inane dialogue.

It was an unhappy night for those who think that words still matter.