Hawking vs Cooper...April 5th

A milestone for the sex sitcom. May Cooper be reduced to ashes.

"'The Big Bang Theory' Enlists Stephen Hawking"

He'll guest star on the April 5 episode for a meeting of the minds with Jim Parsons' Sheldon.

by

Lesley Goldberg

March 12th, 2012

The Hollywood Reporter

CBS' The Big Bang Theory can check off another guest star perfectly suited to the nerdy comedy.

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking will guest star on the April 5 episode of the geeky comedy, the network announced Monday.

The renowned brainiac has been a frequent target for the series about four lovable science nerds, with the Chuck Lorre/Bill Prady series first making a nod to the guys' Hawking hero worship in the pilot.

Subsequent references have included Leonard (Johnny Galecki) impersonating a colleague's Hawking impersonation on the phone and, most notably, during Big Bang's fourth season, Jim Parsons' Sheldon is notoriously tricked into going to the airport in the middle of the night to meet him.

"When people would ask us who a 'dream guest star' for the show would be, we would always joke and say Stephen Hawking -- knowing that it was a long shot of astronomical proportions," Prady said in a statement announcing the news. "In fact, we’re not exactly sure how we got him. It’s the kind of mystery that could only be understood by, say, a Stephen Hawking."

The Hawking casting comes mere weeks after the Thursday night series added dream guest star Leonard Nimoy -- another of Sheldon's famed heroes -- to its ranks for a unique guest gig in which the voice of Spock comes to Sheldon in his dreams.

The series also featured astronaut Mike Massimino in a cameo as himself earlier this season.

The Big Bang Theory airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on CBS.

Mama's boy myth disputed

You know Howard Wolowitz? Of course you do...The Big Bang Theory. Howard lives at home with his over-bearing Jewish mother. Sheldon Cooper observes that Howard seems to have "an unresolved Oedipal complex". You decide.

"The Myth of the Mama’s Boy"

We never worry about an involved father "masculinizing" his daughter. Why do such fears persist about a feminizing aspect of mothering?

by

Kate Stone Lombardi

March 16th, 2012

Time

For generations, mothers have gotten the same old message when it comes to raising sons: beware of keeping him “too close.” A mom who nurtures a deep emotional bond will prevent him from growing up to be a strong, independent man. By refusing to cut those apron strings, she is on track to create the archetypal, effeminate, maladjusted “mama’s boy.” There’s one problem with this theory: it’s just not true.

From the Oedipus myth (not to mention the complex Freud created around it) to the movie Psycho, our culture warns us about the dangers of mother-son closeness. No other parent-child combination is so stigmatized. We encourage mothers and daughters, as well as fathers and sons, to stay close throughout their adult lives. And a supportive father is considered essential to a daughter’s self-esteem. A dad can coach his daughter’s lacrosse team, wipe her tears and encourage her loftiest ambitions, all with smiling approval.

But a mother who is similarly involved in her son’s life is often accused of coddling, meddling, smothering or acting inappropriately. While we don’t worry about an involved father “masculinizing” his daughter, there is clearly concern about the feminizing influence of Mom. As one woman said to me, “It’s like if I spend too much time with my son, he’ll start running around, begging for directions.” Mothers of sons are supposed to push their boys away, physically and emotionally, in the name of their developing manhood.

This double standard is misguided and can be deeply damaging to boys. Certainly we know very young boys benefit from their mother’s love and comfort. A study published in Child Development involving almost 6,000 children found that baby boys who do not form strong attachments to their mothers grow up to be more aggressive and destructive children. And when young sons are encouraged to separate prematurely from their mothers, they become anxious little boys who carry a fear of intimacy and betrayal into their adult years, says Dr. Michael Kimmel, a sociologist who has written extensively about masculinity. After all, the first woman they have loved and depended on has pushed them away.

As boys grow older, mothers who stay close to their sons can help combat the worst elements of a culture that cuts off boys’ natural sensitivity and rich emotional life. For years, headlines have proclaimed that boys are in “crisis.” They suffer from being forced to conform to standards of masculinity that still decree the only acceptable emotions are anger and aggression. Boys are also falling behind girls in school, getting lower grades, exhibiting more behavioral problems and receiving more diagnoses of learning disabilities.

These are not unrelated problems, and moms can be part of the solution. Nurturing mothers can help their sons develop emotional intelligence, encouraging them to talk about their feelings and recognize those of others. Certainly boys who are better able to articulate their thoughts and who have stronger self-control will perform better in the classroom than boys who retreat into silence or act out. One study of 400 middle-school boys in New York City public schools revealed that boys who were closer to their mothers were less likely to define masculinity as a matter of being tough, stoic and self-reliant. These boys not only had less anxiety and depression than their more stoic peers but also were getting better grades.

And contrary to stereotype, boys who can express a broader range of emotions will not become wimps, forever clinging to their mommies, but instead independent guys who will make strong, empathetic spouses and partners, says Dr. William Pollack, a psychology professor at Harvard University. What’s more, these young men will be better equipped to navigate today’s economy, in which communication skills and teamwork are more important for success than brute physical strength or dominance.

Moms are tired of being told to back off from their sons for their own good. By keeping sons close, they aren’t creating mama’s boys. Moms are helping their sons reach their full human potential and setting up their boys for happier, more successful lives.

Northern Lights...Internet feed 3-14-2012

Watch a Live Feed of Tonight’s Northern Lights

Deceased--Bert Bulkin

Bert Bulkin
July 20th, 1929 to March 10th, 2012

"Space pioneer Bert Bulkin dies at 82"

Woodbridge resident played a leading role in the creation of Hubble Space Telescope

by

Rich Hanner

March 14th, 2012

Lodi News-Sentinel

Bert Bulkin, who led the effort to launch a space telescope allowing scientists to see the universe with striking new depth and clarity, has died at 82.

Mr. Bulkin, who retired to Woodbridge in 1992, is known for his pivotal role in the creation of the Hubble Space Telescope, a complex and durable instrument that allowed astronomers to map new planets and peer deep into black holes.

Yet he was also a Renaissance man, say family and friends, who loved to sing and play the piano, had a passion for golf, and frequently regaled friends and family with stories of science, government and politics.

He was also a man of humor and warmth, his family recalled. As a Lockheed project manager, for instance, he controlled a vast and intricate project, yet he made the time to fix his school-aged daughter's treasured talking alarm clock.

In retirement, he shared his passion for space through a slide show that he readily presented to school and civic groups.

Mr. Bulkin died Saturday at Lodi Memorial Hospital of multiple health complications.

"Bert was just a fine man, a loving man, and a great leader," recalled John Harlow, a retired NASA project manager living in Alabama. "People loved him, and they loved working for him."

Bertram Raoul Bulkin was born on July 20, 1929 in Brooklyn, N.Y. As a boy growing up in Brooklyn and in Red Bank, New Jersey, he watched Buck Rogers serials, dreamed of space travel — and had a knack for "fixing" items around the house, including some that weren't broken.

His father moved the family to Southern California to pursue new business interests and Mr. Bulkin was graduated from John Marshall High School in Los Angeles at age 16. He earned his degree in aeronautical engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles.

He joined Lockheed as a detail draftsman. He was quickly promoted to design engineer and worked on varied secret launch missions, including the programs which led to the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba. After a stint working as an executive at ITT, he returned to Lockheed, eventually being named project engineer for the Hubble.

Bringing the Hubble to launch required years of design work, gallons of sweat and limitless patience. Colleagues say Mr. Bulkin never wavered and never lost his cool.

"He wouldn't crack the whip," recalled Jim Carlock, a Lockheed colleague, now retired. "He inspired people by leading the charge, setting the example. People loved working for him."

Using the Hubble, stargazers have seen the heavens with jaw-dropping clarity.

"Telescopes on the ground have to peer through the atmosphere. That's what makes the stars twinkle. So getting a telescope above the atmosphere, on a stable platform, was a huge achievement," Carlock said.

Throughout his career, Mr. Bulkin had a child-like sense of wonder about space, and he wanted to share it. As the Hubble project progressed, he insisted that the final assembly center include large viewing windows so the public could see the amazing instrument as it was completed. The Hubble was launched on April 24, 1991.

Mr. Bulkin retired from Lockheed in 1992 as director of scientific space programs and moved to Woodbridge. He served on the National Academy of Science's blue-ribbon panel exploring options for extending the life of the Hubble, which remains in space and continues to relay data.

He was a popular guest speaker at Rotary Clubs and other civic groups and a volunteer for the Lodi Unified School District.

In 2008, he was inducted into the Lodi Hall of Fame sponsored by the Lodi Boys and Girls Club. In a story announcing his induction, he described the glory of learning: "The more you learn, the better off you are. The more research you do, the more knowledge you gain."

Harlow, the retired NASA manager, said Mr. Bulkin's humanity was as impressive as his intelligence.

"He was truly a man for all seasons," he said.

Mr. Bulkin loved good wine and a good round of golf.

"He was a wonderful friend and brilliant man," said one of his golfing buddies, George Merritt of Woodbridge.

Merritt and others recalled Mr. Bulkin as a man of great good cheer.

"He was so generous and so loving," said his widow, Maggie Talbot Bulkin.

His daughter, Stephanie Roberts of Seattle, said people were naturally attracted to her father's warmth and intellect. He loved playing the piano and singing at family gatherings, she said. He had a staggering range of knowledge, she said, and as a girl, her friends would come to the Bulkin home just to listen to her father talk about science, current affairs or politics.

And she recalled her father, though a very busy man, was a doting father. When she was about 8, she had a Hollie Hobby talking alarm clock that, rather abruptly, stopped talking. She was dejected.

Her father, ever the tinkerer, took the clock to his workbench and, in a short time, had it working again.

"He was was just a very loving, very wonderful man," she said. "I feel sorry for anyone who didn't know him."

Mr. Bulkin was preceded in death by his parents David and Anne Bulkin, his sister Shirley Katz Livingston, his first wife Bernice Horn, and his later wife Carolyn Walker. He is survived by his widow, Maggie Talbot Bulkin; his sons, Steve, Bruce, Keith, David and Carl; his daughter, Stephanie; nine grandchildren and five great-grandchildren; many nephews and nieces; and a circle of extended family and friends.

Jane Austen: Moral philosopher?

"Jane Austen, philosophical psychologist"

by

Rose Woodhouse

March 14th, 2012

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Here’s kind of an odd, but very interesting post, arguing that Jane Austen is a better moral philosopher than a writer, and she’s not a writer with much psychological insight. I think the contrast between good philosopher/bad writer-psychologist was originally meant to be more stark, but an update at the end of the post indicates the author was persuaded by others that she’s actually a pretty good writer. (Because, you know, she is. Like, the best.)

I agree with his general argument that Jane Austen is overlooked as virtue ethicist. Virtue ethics (a view to which I am sympathetic) is a moral view which suggests that the path to moral goodness lies in developing good character traits, such as sympathy, patience, courage, etc. This is opposed to other views about moral goodness which might stress performing right actions, or maximizing the amount of happiness in the world.

As Iris Murdoch, novelist and virtue ethicist, argued explicitly in her philosophy and implicitly in her novels, novels are an excellent way to explore virtue ethics. In order to understand moral rightness according to virtue ethics, you need to understand the vices and virtues of a particular person and the complexity of the situations in which she finds herself. And Jane Austen clearly availed herself of this to explore a sophisticated form of virtue ethics.

The post’s author writes:

Austen celebrates and promotes a solidly middle-class propriety, and this together with her use of narrative (and being a woman?), may explain Austen’s neglect by academic. moral philosophers. Success for Austen’s women depends on developing a moral character whose central virtues are bourgeois: prudence (planning one’s actions with respect to protecting and furthering one’s interests), amiability (civility to family, friends, and strangers, according to their due), propriety (understanding and acting on a sense of what virtue requires), and dignity (considering oneself as an independent autonomous person deserving of respect). Austen is particularly unusual (feminist?) among virtue ethicists past and present in according amiability so much importance, even though it is so obviously central to most people’s lives working, if not living, in close confinement with others with whom one must and should get along. Austen presents these virtues as not merely a necessary accommodation to difficult circumstances, but as superior to the invidious vanit y and pride of the rich and titled, which she often mocks….To show us what true amiability should be, she shows us what it isn’t quite. Fanny Price, the heroine of Mansfield Park, is so excessively amiable as to put her own dignity and interests at risk, so self-effacing that her true love almost doesn’t notice her (until events intervene). Mr Bingley’s amiability is perfect in pitch, but fails to discriminate between the deserving and undeserving (PP). Emma, meanwhile, is very discriminating, but she is a snob about it: she is rather too conscious of her social status and does not actually respect others as she should (which of course, gets her into trouble)

This is all true. She obviously argues for virtues, and just as obviously feels how certain virtues are in conflict with each other, such as open-heartedness and psychological perspicuity. One gets the sense she appreciates her own psychological insight and those of certain of her characters (e.g., Elizabeth Bennet, Emma Woodhouse), but also deplores it because it necessarily lacks an admirable generosity had by other characters (e.g., Jane Bennet, Harriet Smith). In Mansfield Park, the emphasis on generosity as the more important virtue of these two opposing virtues is greater. Most of her vituperation is reserved for those characters who are all about psychological insight (the Crawfords). Indeed, half of the titles of her finished works are names of virtues and vices (Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion, and Pride and Prejudice).

Yet this post’s writer seems to think that Austen’s moral insight comes at the expense of psychological insight:

[S]he doesn’t meet contemporary literary standards. Consider her characters. Once considered so real, now in contrast to the subtle psychological realisticness of modern novelists like Ian McEwan, they look like what they are: complexes of particular moral dispositions rather than plausible human people whom one can take seriously in their own right. In a modern literary novel, the plot is driven forward by the characters, and this is how it should be because it is the characters-as-persons with whom the reader is actually concerned. The reader is provided with direct access to internal events in the minds of the characters and can understand the plot as unfolding naturally from these. Not so in Austen. Her focus is on how her characters reactto events, not on their capacity to cause them, and the happy endings, like the intermediate trials and tribulations, are always dei ex machinis.

But any advocate for virtue ethics is an advoate for deep psychological knowledge. One has to know what one’s vices are to eradicate them, and know one’s virtues to develop them. It’s a morality that is based on psychology. Self-deception is antithetical to the cultivation of virtues, and the majority of Austen character are engaged in more or less elaborate and all too plausible self-deceptions.

Also, I just don’t see that her characters are particular moral dispositions rather than people. Part of that may be my taste – contemporary literary standards are not in improvement on the 19th century, to my way of thinking, and I’d rather read Austen than McEwan any day.

But one of the things that is so charming about, say, Sense and Sensibility is her tendency to let realism and character take over from the simple moral dispositions that the sisters are supposed to represent. Marianne, who is supposed to be criticized for representing the trait of sensibility, is a complex character with insight and intelligence and often and admirable forthrightness. Edward, who is clearly on the sense side of things, is nebulous and weak in some ways while hanging on to a sense of moral duty that seems almost like a port in a storm.

While Austen doesn’t often describe the interior goings on of someone’s head, her descriptions of their actions are pschologically revealing. This is partly how, to this day, people find her so funny – because it feels real. Take this scene in which Mrs. Elton (who is one of those annoying people who moves to a new place and always talks about where she has come from) has just met Mr. Weston’s son:

Mr. Weston was following; but Mrs. Elton detained him, to gratify him by her opinion of his son; and so briskly did she begin, that the young man himself, though by no means moving slowly, could hardly be out of hearing.

“A very fine young man indeed, Mr. Weston. You know I candidly told you I should form my own opinion; and I am happy to say that I am extremely pleased with him.–You may believe me. I never compliment. I think him a very handsome young man, and his manners are precisely what I like and approve–so truly the gentleman, without the least conceit or puppyism. You must know I have a vast dislike to puppies– quite a horror of them. They were never tolerated at Maple Grove. Neither Mr. Suckling nor me had ever any patience with them; and we used sometimes to say very cutting things! Selina, who is mild almost to a fault, bore with them much better.”

While she talked of his son, Mr. Weston’s attention was chained; but when she got to Maple Grove, he could recollect that there were ladies just arriving to be attended to, and with happy smiles must hurry away.

Through only descriptions of behavior, and not of mental states, she paints a picture of how people manage to turn conversations to what they want to talk about (themselves) and how people only stick around for what they want to hear about (themselves). The post’s author suggests that it’s because she’s a woman novelist that people do not take her moral philosophy seriously. But I wonder if he does not take her psychological insight seriously because she relies on humor so often to convey it.

I could give endless examples of Austen’s psychological insight. But one most striking phenomenon is her ability to understand the idea of non-conscious motivations and even actions. You simply don’t see any of that in early 19th century novels. Or philosophy, for that matter, which really ignored the idea of the non-conscious mind. But she completely understood how many human actions are driven by buried motives. She also understood that people even perform non-conscious actions.

A few examples:

From Mansfield Park: “His mind, now disengaged from the cares which had pressed on him at first, was at leisure to find the Grants and their young inmates really worth visiting; and though infinitely above scheming or contriving for any the most advantageous matrimonial establishment that could be among the apparent possibilities of any one most dear to him, and disdaining even as a littleness the being quick-sighted on such points, he could not avoid perceiving, in a grand and careless way, that Mr Crawford was somewhat distinguishing his niece — nor perhaps refrain (though unconsciously) from giving a more willing assent to invitations on that account.”

From Emma: “The contrast between Mrs Churchill’s importance in the world, and Jane Fairfax’s, struck her; one was every thing, the other nothing — and she sat musing on the difference of woman’s destiny, and quite unconscious on what her eyes were fixed, till roused by Miss Bates’s saying…”

From Sense and Sensibility: “Marianne was spared from the troublesome feelings of contempt and resentment, on this impertinent examination of their features, and on the puppyism of his manner in deciding on all the different horrors of the different toothpick-cases presented to his inspection, by remaining unconscious of it all; for she was as well able to collect her thoughts within herself, and be as ignorant of what was passing around her, in Mr Gray’s shop, as in her own bedroom.”

I could go on. But in sum, you cannot be a good virtue ethicist without being a good psychologist. Austen’s characters are not simplistic, and we get her acute psychological insight without long-winded streams-of-consciousness of her characters.

Deceased--Tom Johnson

Tom Johnson
1923 to March 13th, 2012

Telescope visionary Tom Johnson poses with one of his early Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes.

Johnson's first really ambitious creation graced the cover of the March 1963 issue of Sky & Telescope.

Tom Johnson, 1923 – 2012

Thomas J. Johnson, the creator of the modern Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and the founder of Celestron, died early this morning (March 13, 2012), according to Celestron president and CEO Joe Lupica. Johnson was 89.

March 13th, 2012

Sky & Telescope

He ranked among the most important figures shaping the last half century of amateur astronomy.

Johnson was in his early 30s when, in 1955, he used his World War II experience as a radar technician, and postwar employment in the electronics industry, to establish a company called Valor Electronics. Based in Gardena, California, Valor made various components for military and industrial customers, and by the early 1960s it had expanded to roughly 100 employees.

As Valor was growing, so too was Johnson’s own interest in amateur astronomy. After first purchasing 4-inch and later a 10-inch Newtonian reflector, Johnson then headed down a path followed by many amateurs of the day and turned to the hobby of telescope making. The first scope he made was an 8-inch f/4 rich-field Newtonian, soon followed by a 12-inch Cassegrain. Meanwhile, in 1960 he established an "Astro-Optical" division of Valor.

His next telescope project demonstrated that his telescope-making talent and energy would be truly formidable. This scope was a highly unconventional 18¾-inch Cassegrain, made to be transportable. To reduce the weight of the 3-inch-thick primary mirror, Johnson had a ribbed pattern sandblasted into the back of the glass blank. Six months and about $1,000 later, he had a fork-mounted scope that could be disassembled and packed into a car in about 15 minutes.

On July 28, 1962, he hauled the scope to the parking area atop Mount Pinos for its public debut at one of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society’s star parties. It made a big impression among the group’s advanced amateurs, who examined it in detail. The telescope was so noteworthy that it became the cover story of Sky & Telescope's March 1963 issue.

But it was another S&T article that prompted Johnson to change history. As he was finishing the 18¾-inch scope, Donald Willey published a seminal analysis of Cassegrain telescope designs in the April 1962 issue. Johnson was intrigued by the excellent off-axis optical performance of the Schmidt-Cassegrain design. Based on his experience building the 18¾-inch scope and a plan to use optics made to order by Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Johnson took the bold step of advertising a 20-inch multipurpose Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, called the "Celestronic 20," in S&T’s January 1964 issue.

The Astro-Optical Division name quickly morphed to Celestron Pacific, a division of Valor. By December Valor was dropped, and Celestron’s ad introduced pictures of 4-, 6-, 10-, and 22-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes as well as mention of a 36-inch. But most of Celestron’s sales were for the 10-inch, which cost about $2,000 when outfitted with basic accessories.

Despite his initial arrangement with Perkin-Elmer, Johnson was soon making his own Schmidt-Cassegrain optics. A breakthrough came early on when Johnson created a method for mass producing the telescopes’ optically complex corrector plates. For this and other contributions to optics, Johnson was later awarded the Optical Society of America’s David Richardson Medal; he was one of only a few non-Ph.D. optical engineers to ever receive the honor.

In the late 1960s, Johnson and his colleagues speculated that the sweet spot of the market would be for a compact, quality 8-inch portable Schmidt-Cassegrain costing around $1,000. And unlike most telescopes of the day, it should be as photography-friendly as the technology of the time allowed. Johnson returned to the drafting table, and what emerged was the $850 “classic C8,” first advertised in S&T’s June 1970 issue. With a radically new orange and tan motif, the C8 was an overnight hit. It set the pattern for all the amateur Schmidt-Cassegrains that would follow in the coming decades from Celestron, its competitor Meade Instruments, and others.

Writes Celestron's president and CEO Joe Lupica: "Tom's innovative, pioneering spirit created a revolutionary method of mass producing an affordable Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope design, which allowed millions of amateur astronomers to pursue their passion for astronomy. Other notable achievements include a 1978 David Richardson Medal from the Optical Society of America, a 1993 Bruce Blair Medal from the Western Amateur Astronomers, and a 2009 Lifetime Achievement Award by the Small Telescope & Astronomical Society. Our hearts go out to Tom's wife and family and to all who were touched by his achievements and innovation."

For more about Johnson's life and how his optical innovations revolutionized amateur astronomy, see The Path of Light. Produced by Celestron two years ago, this 17½-minute documentary features interviews with Johnson and others who grew up using his telescopes.

The Path of Light: Generation of Dreamers

Celestron [Wikipedia]

Deceased--Rushworth M. Kidder

Rushworth M. Kidder
May 8th, 1944 to March 5th, 2012

"Rushworth M. Kidder dies at 67; ethics expert"

The former Christian Science Monitor columnist and university professor founded the Institute for Global Ethics. He taught courses on ethical thinking and wrote books on the subject.

March 13th, 2012

Los Angeles Times

Rushworth M. Kidder, a former Christian Science Monitor columnist who taught and wrote books about ethics, died March 5 of natural causes in Naples, Fla. He was 67.

His death was announced by the Institute for Global Ethics, the Rockport, Maine-based nonprofit Kidder founded to teach ethical thinking.

Kidder was a bestselling author, whose books include "How Good People Make Tough Choices" (1995), which former President Jimmy Carter praised as a "thought-provoking guide to enlightened and progressive personal behavior," and "Good Kids, Tough Choices: How Parents Can Help Their Children Do the Right Thing" (2010).

In his books and speeches, he emphasized five "core values" — responsibility, honesty, respect, compassion and fairness. He also spoke about moral courage, which he said was not only about understanding the difference between right and wrong. He said the greatest ethical challenges involved conflicts between two core values — or as he often put it, "between right and right." He wanted people to learn how to decide which choices represented the "higher right."

Born May 8, 1944, in Providence, R.I., Kidder was the son of a biochemistry professor and a research assistant at Massachusett's Amherst College, where he earned his bachelor's degree in 1965. He went on to complete a doctorate in English and comparative literature at Columbia University in 1969 and for the next 10 years taught English at Wichita State University. He was an expert on e e cummings.

While teaching at Wichita State, Kidder began writing essays for the Christian Science Monitor, which in 1979 hired him as its London bureau chief. After two years, he joined the Monitor's newsroom in Boston and became a columnist. He later served as a features editor.

He began writing about ethics after the devastating 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. The explosion, which killed dozens of workers and caused widespread contamination, was caused by employees conducting an unauthorized experiment. "It really was … at heart a collapse of values, a failure of conscience," Kidder told National Public Radio in 1994.

In 1990 Kidder left the Monitor to launch the institute and spent the next two decades giving "ethical fitness" workshops at corporations and schools and lecturing to groups around the world.

He is survived by his wife, Anne Elizabeth Davidson Kidder, and two daughters.

Rushworth Moulton Kidder (1944–2012)

Institute for Global Ethics

Rushworth M. Kidder, a celebrated journalist and ethicist who devoted his life to expanding the importance and understanding of practical ethics education, died from natural causes in Florida on Monday, March 5, 2012.

Dr. Kidder was a longtime resident of Maine, where he and his wife of forty-six years, Elizabeth, raised two daughters and founded the Institute for Global Ethics, one of the world’s leading voices on corporate and educational ethics.

Widely praised as a provocative speaker and stimulating author, Kidder’s lifelong goal was to make ethics both practical and practiced, bridging the gap between moral philosophy and daily life. He spent much of his career calling for less polarization and greater cooperation — in politics, at school, within communities — by noting that many of life’s greatest challenges involve right-versus-right dilemmas between competing moral arguments.

This philosophical framework served as the foundation for his nonprofit Institute for Global Ethics, which began as a second-story walk-up in the coastal Maine village of Camden. The Institute later opened offices in New York City and London, England, becoming a worldwide resource for practical ethics education and consultation. The Institute carries on Kidder’s work through regular seminars and workshops, a Center for Corporate Ethics in New York, and publication of Ethics Newsline®, an internet-based ethics digest for which he wrote a weekly column for more than 14 years.

Rush was a family man, first and foremost, cherishing the time spent with his surviving family — his wife Anne Elizabeth Davidson Kidder; his daughters Abby Kidder of Boston, Massachusetts, and Sgt. Heather Kidder of Miami, Florida; and godson Dwight Deckelmann of Cumberland, Maine. Rush’s faith and church community served as a grounding force in his life. He will be greatly missed and fondly remembered for his maritime adventures, his ready wit, and his gift for making the piano sing.

Prior to founding the Institute for Global Ethics, Kidder served as a longtime journalist for The Christian Science Monitor, based in Boston, Massachusetts. He began his career at the newspaper in 1979 as London correspondent, eventually taking over weekly commentary duties on the Boston area as well as social trends and issues. Two of his essays appeared in the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ Best Newspaper Writing, 1983. As the Monitor’s feature editor from 1983 to 1985, he was part of a six-person team running the newspaper, ultimately serving as senior columnist until 1990. The New York Times described Kidder as one of the Monitor’s “most celebrated journalists.”

Kidder won widespread acclaim for his 1994 book Shared Values for a Troubled World: Conversations with Men and Women of Conscience, which chronicled his efforts to identify a global code of ethics. Journalist and commentator Bill Moyers hailed the book’s interviews with 24 opinion makers from 16 countries, noting that “only Rush Kidder would have made this odyssey, and only Rush Kidder could have returned with such a valuable cargo of insights.”

Kidder later wrote How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, which was praised by President Jimmy Carter as “a thought-provoking guide to enlightened and progressive personal behavior.” Over the course of nearly forty years, he authored twelve books, including:

Good Kids, Tough Choices: How Parents Can Help Their Children Do the Right Thing (2010)

The Ethics Recession: Reflections on the Moral Underpinnings of the Current Economic Crisis (2009)

Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values are Put to the Test (2005)

How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living (1995)

Shared Values for a Troubled World: Conversations with Men and Women of Conscience (1994)

Heartland Ethics: Voices from the American Midwest (as editor) (1992)

In the Backyards of Our Lives and Other Essays (1992)

Global Ethics: A Quartet of Interviews (1992)

Reinventing the Future: Global Goals for the 21st Century (1989)

An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century (1987)

E.E. Cummings: An Introduction to the Poetry (Columbia Introductions to Twentieth-Century American Poetry) (1979)

Dylan Thomas: The Country of the Spirit (1973)

Rushworth Moulton Kidder was born in 1944 and raised in Amherst, Massachusetts, one of three children born to Dr. George Kidder, a biochemistry professor at Amherst College, and his wife and lab assistant Ruth. He was an honors graduate of Amherst College (1965) and earned a Ph.D. from Columbia University in English and Comparative Literature (1969). Dr. Kidder taught English for ten years at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas. In 1980, he won the Explicator Literary Foundation Award for his book on the poetry of E.E. Cummings, whose writings and paintings remained a passion throughout his life.

A committed philanthropist, Kidder was one of the longest standing trustees of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation in Flint, Michigan. He was instrumental in the founding and development of the World Ocean School in 2001 and was an active member of its Board of Directors. He also served on the advisory council of the Character Education Partnership, the research council for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Conference Board Working Group on Global Business Ethics Principles, and the advisory board of PBS’s “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly.”

We have lost “our great friend, leader, and colleague,” said Paul McAuliffe, Chair of the Institute’s Board and current Executive Director of the U.S. Federal Reserve Employee Benefits System. “We will work diligently to honor Rush’s legacy and to keep alive the contributions that he and the Institute have made to the advancement of ethics in our world.”