January 02, 2008
"One of the Benefits of Marriage is Divorce"
(Tim Jones)
Before this next post, I just want to say - in reply to some inquiries - that I believe Jimmy is just fine. He has had some projects in the works and has found blog time harder to squeeze in, but he has not dropped into a wormhole, as far as I know. It isn't even like we talk every week, but I'm pretty sure that if he had been eaten by a rhinoceros in broad daylight, I would know by now. Everything's cool.
And now to return to your regular programming... this from Old World Swine;
"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce"
...just as one of the perks of casual sex is that it gives you the chance to try some of these nifty new herpes treatments (they look so cool on the commercials - yeah, we're livin' the herpes lifestyle).
In addition, one of the most exciting things about driving is the possibility that you'll get to find out first-hand what an air-bag deployment is really like, instead of watching it on Mythbusters. I haven't experienced it yet, but every day brings new possibilities.
Really... you can't make this stuff up. The headline quote is genuine, and reflects the extent to which the secular world is willing to tie itself into pretzels to deny that natural law exists.
One thing I think you will see play out in gay divorce court is that one partner (probably the biological parent, if there is one) will argue that gay marriage is legally invalid.
Posted by Tim Jones in Current Affairs, Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (33)
November 21, 2007
Why NOT Embryonic Research?
(Tim Jones)
I heard about this new stem cell research yesterday on NPR, which broadcast a brief debate on the subject between Sean Tipton, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Basically, Dr. Doerflinger takes this advance as Great News in that soon there may be no scientific (let alone moral) justification to continue controversial research on human embryonic stem cells, whereas Dr. Tipton thinks such research should continue - just in case. He sees stem cell research as a race to the finish line (his analogy) and whatever it takes to get there is fine, even though "some people" have moral problems with it.
It wasn't so much his point of view that puzzled me (after all, you can't expect someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes to behave as if they do*) but the way he defended it; So, why should we continue with controversial research, even in the face of grave moral misgivings? Because "we live in a pluralistic society".
H'okay...
Now, I'm sure Dr. Tipton could give a better, more well-rounded defense than that, if pressed, but tho whole idea (very popular, of late) that a "pluralistic society" must allow scientists to pursue "whatever works" is just freaky. Never mind advanced ethical philosophy, has Dr. Tipton never seen Frankenstein or Them or even The Hideous Sun Demon? Hollywood had this all sussed many decades ago... there are Some Things that Man was Not Meant to Tamper With.
And, the question must be asked; if Moral Pluralism is the standard, the foundational dogma of our modern society, then what is NOT to be allowed, and why? Aren't all ethical frameworks equally - that is subjectively - valid? Why NOT eugenics? Why NOT a genetically modified warrior race? Why NOT chemical and biological weapons?
The natural law would proscribe all these things on the basis that they are offenses against human dignity. Pluralism might find them all wrong now (because most people find them morally repugnant, even if they can't say why), but there can be no guarantee about the future. If most people - or even if enough of the right people - become okay with it at some point, well, we can expect these kinds of examples of the New, Improved Dynamic Morality.
"How beautious mankind is! O brave new world: That has such people in't!".
*This touches on a recent mammoth combox debate on morality and ethics. There is this idea that one may arrive at a workable moral framework in a number of ways and that there will be little practical difference in the end. But that is not true. Toss out moral absolutes and the divergences in ethical philosophy and practice are profound and immediate.
Posted by Tim Jones in Current Affairs, Science, Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (265)
August 22, 2007
On The Other Hand . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
Yesterday I linked a post from Anne Rice arguing that the Democratic Party best represents gospel values regarding feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, etc.
By coincidence, Thomas Sowell just put up a column arguing that, in fact, politicians on the left (not quite the same thing as members of the Democratic Party, but close enough to make a meaningful contrast) actually are not promoting gospel values in such regards but only giving the appearance of doing so in furthering their own ideological (or, I would add, re-election) goals.
So here's another perspective.
GET THE STORY.
In a related note, John Stossel takes aim at the idea promoted by Michael More in his movie "Sicko" that the U.S. provides poor health care in comparison to nations with more socialistic medical systems.
GET THAT STORY, TOO.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (67)
July 04, 2007
Sowell on America
(Jimmy Akin)
Thomas Sowell generally does a 4th of July column on America and our need to appreciate the fact that, unlike many nations--or to a greater degree than many nations--it works. (Or at least he did such a column last year, if I recall correctly.) Sure, America has got lots of problems, but every nation has lots of problems because of . . . well, you know that thing a long time ago with the apple. But despite its problems, America is a functional society, or at least is functional in important ways that are uncommon or even unique.
This year he writes:
There is nothing automatic about the way of life achieved in this country. It is very unusual among the nations of the world today and rarer than four-leaf clovers in the long view of history.
It didn't just happen. People made it happen -- and they and those who came after them paid a price in blood and treasure to create and preserve this nation that we now take for granted.
More important, this country's survival is not automatic. What we do will determine that.
Too many Americans today are not only unconcerned about what it will take to preserve this country but are busy dismantling the things that make it America.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (77)
August 18, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
Found while flipping through the Great Quotes file:
"It may be that the greatest proof of the effectiveness of social disapproval is its demonstrated ability to turn on itself." --Judith Martin
How true it is that the only socially disapproved sin these days is Social Disapproval, which is sometimes indiscriminately referred to as Judgmentalism.
Who is Judith Martin? You may know her better as Miss Manners.
Judith Martin is one of my favorite secular social commentators. If you also are a fan, you can read her column in archive at the Washington Post.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (7)
June 23, 2006
The Pet Detectives
(Michelle Arnold)
Did you think Ace Ventura was the only pet detective around? Turns out there really are professional Pet Detectives out there who will implement the Missing Animal Response (no kidding) to track down on-the-lam Fidos and Fluffys.
"Pet Hunters International (PHI) is the first-ever pet detective academy that trains and certifies pet detectives and search dogs to track lost pets. PHI was founded by Kat Albrecht, a police detective-turned-pet detective who pioneered what are now called Missing Animal Response (MAR) services.
"MAR services mirror the same investigative techniques, technologies, and strategies that police detectives and search-and-rescue technicians use to solve missing persons investigations. PHI certifies 'MAR Technicians' to use high-tech equipment (amplified listening devices, night vision, baby monitors), cat detection dogs, trailing dogs trained to track lost dogs and horses, analytical methods like search probability theory and deductive reasoning to predict the distances that lost pets travel, and the collection and analysis of physical evidence. The MAR Technicians that we certify are typically animal lovers who are interested in working with animals and/or in training a dog to track lost pets."
I know what it's like to love a pet and would be besieging St. Francis of Assisi with prayers and pounding the pavement in search of a lost animal friend of mine. But I can't get over the feeling that "pet detective agencies" are just another manifestation of Western society's tendency to idolize their pets.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (6)
June 21, 2006
The Unreconstructed Family
(Michelle Arnold)
If a list of qualifications were drawn up for a stay-at-home mom, some radical secular feminists would add to the list "Intelligent human beings need not apply":
"Linda Hirshman, a feminist US writer on cultural issues, has told the world why she thinks staying at home with the children is an occupation 'not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings.' She complains at length that the feminist movement, while making some gains in public life through legal activism, has largely failed in the one area where it counts most: the family.
"She upbraids women who stay at home for failing the feminist agenda, saying, 'They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings.'
"Writing in the November 2005 edition of The American Prospect [sic, it was the December 2005 issue], Hirshman admitted that the real intention of the feminist movement was not 'equality,' but to destroy what she calls 'the unreconstructed family' of a husband and wife rearing children. She writes that the goal was to see as many women as possible abandoning family life for high-level professions and politics."
It wouldn't surprise me if radical secular feminists of the Hirshman mold would prefer that children be hatched from pods and raised by Big Brother. In any event, such sentiments certainly demonstrate the raw hatred of children that makes more understandable -- though not any more excusable -- the commitment of radical secular feminism to abortion. After all, if Intelligent Human Beings cannot be bothered to raise children, why should the IHBs among us suffer the indignity of bringing preborn children to birth in the first place?
Confidential Aside to Lifesite.net: It would be extremely helpful to your readership to provide links to the articles in question. I thought that there was only one link -- to The American Prospect article -- to search out. Turns out there were two. The older article from TAP and a recent article from The Washington Post, the Post article and not the TAP article per se being the reason why the current brouhaha is raging.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (29)
June 20, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
After once again riffling through the Great Quote Files, I pulled up the following:
Dreams do come true, if we only wish hard enough. You can have anything in life if you will sacrifice everything else for it. --James M. Barrie
Who was James M. Barrie?
As a side note, I loved the recent movie about Barrie, titled Finding Neverland, but don't recommend it to anyone who thinks crying over movies is a weakness.
GET THE REVIEW by co-blogger Steven Greydanus.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (10)
May 04, 2006
'Tuding Up Toddlers
(Michelle Arnold)
When I saw the following article, what immediately crossed my mind was Shea's Law that a culture that despises virginity despises children:
"Britney wannabes -- rev up your credit cards, there's a double-wide load of styles to choose from. There's the winsome 'Baby Beater' tank tops, the mini basketball uniform with 'Jr. Pimp Squad' across the jersey or the T-shirts that read 'My Mom Is a MILF.' (I'd explain MILF, but this is a family newspaper.)"
And what thoughts were behind this brainchild's birth? Why, pure selfishness, of course! Color me surprised.
"Where does such design genius come from? I had the pleasure of speaking with the brainchild behind Pimpfants Inc. yesterday, as one Jared Parsons explained his eureka moment. A former skateboarder, he was shopping for clothes for his first son, who's now 5 and quite a fashion plate. 'I wanted him to dress how me and my friends dress,' Parsons said, 'but it's hard to find baby clothes like that.' Gee, I wonder why. Parsons and his friends use the word 'pimp' to mean 'styling,' he explained, and just as he was wishing he could buy his infant some styling clothes it came to him: Pimpfants. 'Wow,' he said to himself, 'that's a really good idea.'"
(Nod to Katie Allison Granju for the link.)
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (15)
May 03, 2006
Shelby Steele on White Guilt & Iraq
(Tim Jones)
I have liked Shelby Steele ever since his book The Content of Our Character came out back in the nineties.
I had to pass on this excellent opinion piece by Steele, from today's Wall Street Journal.
Anyone with even a casual interest in U.S. History will appreciate the insight that Steele draws from our military experiences since WWII.
His premise is that White Guilt causes us to wage war only at a level tolerable to our enemies. The subtitle of the piece asks the question "Why is America so delicate with the enemy?".
His exploration of the meaning of the term "white guilt" alone makes the article a worthy read.
Our enemies see our restraint as weakness and they are correct, in a sense. From our perspective, we may see it as self-imposed weakness that comes from strength. Our enemies don't feel they have the luxury of moderating their war efforts. We apparently do.
I think many Iraq war critics fail to grasp what a tricky job it is to make war against a weaker and poorer nation, even if the job needs doing. The truth is that we could squash Iraq like a bug. We could carpet bomb their cities into oblivion and set up whatever kind of government we durn well pleased, but we don't. If we had no scruples, we could easily make the insurgency impossible. We could pour three times the current number of troops into Iraq (as Colin Powell has suggested). The fact that we don't is a topic worthy of serious investigation, and Steele does an admirable job.
Steele sees the same White Guilt induced paralysis throughout the West. He also sees it in our seeming inability to take any kind of intelligible position on immigration.
Not that White Guilt in itself doesn't have its place. We should rightly feel shame at some of our national sins; slavery, wanton destruction of native populations, the headlong rush into hedonistic materialism following the industrial revolution. It was likely our own imperiaslism, exported to Japan, that came back to us in WWII.
We have laboriously overcome some of these national sins. We are yet paying penance for others, and some we are still actively engaged in (that would be the hedonism thing).
Clear sighted commentary like this, from Shelby Steele and others, helps us to put things into perspective and move on, completing our penance for past sins, and leaving us free to tackle our current ones.
Everyone should read this.
Posted by Tim Jones in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (35)
April 24, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
From the Great Quotes Department:
"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent." --Isaac Newton
Who was Isaac Newton?
I rather like the cartoon of Newton under the apple tree since it illustrates his observation that great discoveries owe as much (if not more) to patient attention as they do to any inherent genius on the part of the observer, but I thought I'd better include a more lifelike image as well.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (6)
April 10, 2006
I Enjoy Being A Gr-r-r-r-rl.
(Tim Jones)
Tim J here.
I like to tune in to MTV occasionally, just to keep an eye on what's current, you know... ordinarily, its pretty desolate. Not much in the way of creativity or beauty or even talent.
- Begin Aside... I don't see how viewers are supposed to tell one Hip-Hop video/song from another. They all have the same theme; I am better than you because I drink "X", I drive a "Y" and I have a bigger ammo clip to go in my "Z". I also have more bling, more (ahem) etc. than you.
They all have the same fly girls. The posse straight out of central casting.
Okay, does this remind anyone of Disco? Wasn't there a big disco backlash because (almost) everyone got tired of the shallowness, the gold chains, the slimy sexuality? Granted, what we got in its place was Hair Metal, but at least there was a healthy disillusionment with the overblown worldliness of the whole disco scene. Remember "Disco Sucks" shirts? Anyone remember the Insane Coho Lips? I think another backlash is overdue. Hip Hop sucks. - Aside Over.
Once in a while, though, I run across something of interest. I saw a video the other day by Pink that actually gave me some genuine belly laughs. It's called "Stupid Girl" and is a send-up of the ditzy, over-sexualized, pampered, shallow, anorexic female stereotypes that so pervasively confront our kids in the media. I generally like well-done parodies, and I really enjoyed this one.
But, Pink is only half right. It appears she has bought in to the brand of radical feminism that says the best way to find your true womanhood is to think, talk and act like a man. So, rather than presenting a sane alternative to the Bratz doll image of femininity, Pink seems to think that girls should... play more football? Wear Vans? What if you're not into that, either? What if you just want to be a normal girl?
As much as Hair Metal and Punk were a reaction against Disco, the Thong Generation is a reaction against Radical Feminism. Gender will out, no matter what Patricia Ireland says. All the tiny tees, clingy skirts, frilly undies and makeup are a misguided but natural response to the attempted forcible negation of true womanhood in the culture. I would wager that most girls really don't mind being girls.
For decades, girls have been taught how stupid (if not evil) men are, and then they are taught that if they want to really be a success in life, they should act more like men.
Pink is no role model for young Catholic girls, either (she has her own issues), but her parody of Paris Hilton femininity is spot on. Too bad she can't see the forest for the trees right now, but she may be on the right track.
VISIT PINK'S SITE & PLAY THE VIDEO. (Warning: Pink is not a nice Catholic girl, or a role model for same. The video conatins language and images that may offend some viewers).
Posted by Tim Jones in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
April 05, 2006
Sexy Media = Child Promiscuity
(Michelle Arnold)
From our Great Discoveries In Science Department, researchers have confirmed what social conservatives have been warning a dismissive society about for years: Sex in the media influences youngsters to experiment on their own.
"Sexually charged music, magazines, TV and movies push youngsters into intercourse at an earlier age, perhaps by acting as kind of virtual peer that tells them everyone else is doing it, a study said Monday.
"'This is the first time we've shown that the more kids are exposed to sex in media the earlier they have sex,' said Jane Brown of the University of North Carolina, chief author of the report.
"Previous research had been limited to television, said the study which looked at 1,017 adolescents when they were aged 12 to 14 and again two years later. They were checked on their exposure during the two years to 264 items -- movies, TV shows, music and magazines -- which were analyzed for their sexual content.
"In general it found that the highest exposure levels led to more sexual activity, with white teens in the group 2.2 times more likely to have had intercourse at ages 14 to 16 than similar youngsters who had the least exposure."
When scientists say this, it is Big News; when social conservatives -- particularly traditional Christians -- say this, it is shrugged off as starboard paranoia.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
I couldn't decide whether to file the following Great Quote under About Writing or Social Analysis. I settled on Social Analysis because I think it has a point that is broader than its original context as a remark on literary creativity.
"You can’t wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club." —Jack London
For those of you who have never heard of Jack London...
For those of you who have and who also happen to like sci-fi, here is an interesting factoid about Jack London from Wikipedia:
"Jack London appears briefly as a character at the end of Star Trek: TNG [The Next Generation] episode 'Time's Arrow,' Parts I and II as a hotel employee. Mark Twain advises him to go to Alaska."
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
March 29, 2006
Name Changes & Marriage
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
My sister is getting married this summer. She is thinking about keeping our last name instead of taking her husbands name or hyphenation of the two names. I am not sure how I feel about this except that if it is ok with her future husband and her it’s probably ok.
My wife and I talked about it before marrying – my wife changed her maiden name into a second middle name (my family has a two middle name tradition). I might be old fashioned; I would have had a problem with my wife completely rejecting my name and hanging on to hers.
Where does the name change tradition come from? Is there a reason besides tradition to take the grooms last name?
Different cultures handle this issue differently. Not all cultures even have last names, much less do they all have women taking them at marriage.
As a result, there is no in principle reason why your sister could not keep her last name.
That being said, there is a reason why the custom exists in our culture. The basic reason is that our culture (a) does have family names and (b) it is a patrilineal culture.
What the second thing means is that we trace our ancestry, at least dominantly, by the male line (hence: patri- lineal = "by the father's line"). Not all cultures do this. Some are matrilineal, meaning that they trace descent primarily by the female line (hence: matri- lineal = "by the mother's line").
The cultures from which ours descended, including not only the major western cultures but also biblical Judaism, were patrilineal. That's why, even though they didn't have last names in biblical times, you have Peter being named Simon bar-Jonah (bar- is Aramaic for "son of").
In patrilineal cultures when a marriage occurs the wife becomes part of her husband's family, and if you have family names in such a culture, it becomes natural for the wife to take her husband's family name.
There may be a sense in such cultures that both the husband and wife are really part of each other's families now, but since descent is reckoned by the male line, there is a greater sense that the wife is part of the husband's family rather than visa versa.
These are the reasons that the custom exists anthropologically, but the origins of the custom tended to be obscured in the minds of many.
When radical feminism came along, it wanted to radically tinker with the sexual status quo, to smash traditional gender roles, and even to call into question the institution of the nuclear family. (I'm talking about radical feminism, mind you, not moderate feminism that merely wanted better treatment for women.)
Doing away with the historical naming conventions would serve those goals (as well as making it harder to keep track of who is related to whom, thus undermining the family), and so not taking the husband's name became a symbol of defiance against traditional values.
That reason is enough for a traditional minded person to be suspicious of the practice.
It's not that there's anything wrong with a woman keeping her own name in principle. It's done that way in many cultures. But to reject the practice of taking the husband's name in our culture signifies a rejection of how our culture handles marriage, and that is rightly regarded by many as a danger signal.
Personally, my instincts on such matters are traditional, and I think that we are biblically required to maintain certain elements of the husband-wife relationship as it has been historically understood in Christian culture.
As St. Paul says in Ephesians 5:
21: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.
23: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24: As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
25: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her,
26: that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27: that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28: Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29: For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church,
30: because we are members of his body.
31: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
32: This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church;
33: however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
This passage reflects a unity-in-diversity between husbands and wives. Their roles in marriage are not simply interchangeable, but neither may one side take advantage of the other. Both must be treated with equal dignity, even if their roles and obligations are not identical (note: a husband is required to sacrifice himself for his wife in a way that is not true in reverse).
My late wife--Renee--was also traditional in this matter. She wanted to be called Mrs. Akin. In fact, she loved being called Mrs. James Akin (James being my legal name at the time), and I felt proud to have her want to share not just one but both of my names.
I understand the suspicion that many men would have upon learning that a prospective marriage partner wanted to keep her own last name. The question that would immediately come to mind is: "If she rejects this aspect of marriage as it is traditionally handled in our culture, what else about traditional marriage does she reject?"
Should I marry again (as I hope to), I would definitely start asking myself that question if a prospective marriage partner told me that she wanted to keep her own name.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (56) | TrackBack
March 06, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
From the Great Quotes file:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, although it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye." --Miss Piggy
Who is Miss Piggy?
She'll be highly insulted that you would need to...
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
February 23, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
From the Great Quotes file:
"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiation (and creation) there is one elemental truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves in too." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Who was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
Do You Have A Baby Einstein?
(Michelle Arnold)
If you have been buying Baby Einstein videos in the hopes of turning your child into a miniature genius, or even in the hopes of having a few minutes of peace, you may be interested in reading about the "The $165 Million Scam":
"Back when I was 8 months pregnant with Alex, my mother and I were washing windows outside. I lamented that 21-month-old Andie was getting in my way whenever I needed to do chores around the house. I wasn't ready to resort to baby videos, but I completely empathized with parents needing their kids out of their hair. Having raised four girls without any educational videos, my mother's response was simple: have them work along with you. I laughed, thinking surely she must have forgotten what it was like with little kids.
"'Think of your ancestors,' she said to me as she filled up a bucket with soapy water. 'What do you think the pioneers did with their children?'
[...]
"But it's not just parents' need for breaks that sells Baby Einstein. It's the pressure we put on ourselves to create the optimum learning environment for our kids, from the minute they are home from the hospital.
[...]
But Dr. [Patricia] Kuhl's most recent work proves videos ineffective in teaching babies foreign languages. In her July 2003 experiment, Kuhl showed that exposing 10-month-olds to videos and DVDs of native Mandarin Chinese speakers had zero effect on their language development. But if that video is replaced with a living, breathing, person speaking Mandarin, babies showed great learning of that language in a short time period, according to her report. Even though Aigner-Clark had good intentions with her language video, Baby Einstein does not teach babies foreign languages -- only live people can do that. And without specifically mentioning the company or its products, Kuhl's research actually debunks Baby Einstein's theory that certain videos could create little 'Einsteins.' In The Scientist in the Crib, the trend of making babies smarter is referred to as 'pseudoscience,' warning parents to be 'deeply suspicious of any enterprise that offers a formula for making babies smarter or teaching them more, from flash cards to Mozart tapes ... these artificial interventions are at best useless and at worst distractions from the normal interaction between grown-ups and babies' (Kuhl, et. al., 201)."
Not to mention that using a video as an electronic babysitter or babytutor is a sure-fire way to turn your child into a television addict before he even learns to walk.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Quote Of The Day
(Michelle Arnold)
While surfing the Internet, I stumbled across a great quote, which seems to say so much more than it's speaker originally intended. Every so often, as I find more quotes that seem almost prophetic in nature, I'll share them here.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living." --Omar N. Bradley
Who was Omar N. Bradley?
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
January 11, 2006
Tales From The Freezer
(Michelle Arnold)
In the never-ending quest to Have It All, young women who want to put off having a family until they're finished playing Career Barbie can freeze their eggs for future use.
"Young career women will soon be routinely freezing their eggs so they can have children after their fertility has declined, experts are predicting.
"Fertility pioneer Dr. Simon Fishel said coming technological developments in the embryo-freezing process would allow women to effectively delay motherhood.
"Unless there was a 'sea change' in social attitudes the practice would be common within 10 years, said Dr. Fishel."
My crack about young women "playing Career Barbie" shouldn't mislead you: I am not against a young woman choosing to remain single and have a career rather than get married and have a family. If she later changes her mind and decides to marry and try for children, that's great. If she continues working while married until children arrive, that's fine too. And if financial necessity demands that she combine motherhood with an outside job, that is the business of her and her husband.
But what this article appears to suggest is a young woman remaining "childless by choice" for the sake of her career, presumably through use of contraception, and then trying for a family once she can no longer hit the snooze alarm on her biological clock. The foul procedure reported by the article simply confirms such a woman in her selfishness rather than challenge her to accept that she cannot Have It All.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
December 30, 2005
De Nada
(Michelle Arnold)
Michelle here.
My high-school Spanish is pretty sketchy, but I do know that de nada is the Spanish response to "thank you" (gracias). Literally, it means "of nothing," which would be roughly translated to the English colloquialism "It was nothing."
It seems that a good many generous Americans should consider taking up the phrase "It was nothing" rather than "You're welcome" if and when they receive a modern thank-you note. The notes they're receiving are often worse than having received nothing at all in response to a gift they've given.
"In fact, that's what many generous Americans will receive during this season of giving: absolutely nothing in return. This time of year, when virtually everyone owes someone a thank-you, many people assume that if they open a present in the presence of the giver, no formal thank-you is required.
"Even when it comes to expensive baby shower and wedding gifts, the thank-you note increasingly is becoming the thank-you not. Putting fountain pen to ecru eggshell has just about gone the way of plunking IBM Selectric keys onto onion skin.
"It's not just that people don't write as many personal notes as they used to. Today, when gratitude is expressed in writing, it's often done grudgingly, as obligation rather than art -- via a casual card or e-mail with a generic, hastily scribbled message: 'Thank you for the present.'"
I recently read a great book on the art of thank-you notes. Among other interesting factoids, it reprinted a lovely letter that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis managed to write to President Lyndon B. Johnson within days of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. At the time I reflected that if she could set aside the enormous hardships she was suffering at the time to write what today would be considered a "gratuitous" thank-you letter (not a note), lesser excuses for failing to write thank-yous do not suffice.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
November 15, 2005
How Victimized Are You?
(Jimmy Akin)
The culture of victimization that has infected much of Western society has led to the creation of a culture consisting largely of victims.
John Leo offers a handy summary of some of the most absurd victim stories of 2005.
EXCERPTS:
CHILDREN OF WITCHES ARE VICTIMIZED BY HALLOWEEN. Coming to class dressed as a witch on Halloween is a violation of "equitable schools policies," according to the Toronto district school board. The board said it feared "traumatic shock" if children treat "the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs as 'fun.'"
BRITISH MUSLIMS ARE VICTIMIZED BY PIGLET AND PIGGY BANKS. Novelty pig calendars, toys, and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet have been banned in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, out of deference to Muslim sensibilities.
STUDENTS ARE VICTIMIZED BY THE DISAPPEARANCE OF LOW WEEKEND PRICES IN BARS. Pressured by the University of Wisconsin and a federal campaign against binge drinking, 24 bars near the Madison campus agreed to end cut-rate weekend prices. Three students and a Minneapolis law firm failed to convince a Wisconsin circuit judge that this represented conspiracy and price-fixing. But they are suing again in federal court. Legal costs to the bar owners so far: $250,000.
FIRED CBS EMPLOYEE IS VICTIMIZED BY VIACOM, CBS, VICIOUS BLOGGERS, THE PANEL THAT INVESTIGATED HER, AND A "MCCARTHYITE" PANEL MEMBER WHO ASKED IF SHE IS A LIBERAL. Mary Mapes complained last week that people were saying mean things about her and the discredited "60 Minutes II" segment she produced about President Bush's military service. She felt "extremely battered" by "having my head kicked around a soccer stadium by much of the western world." No apology, though. For unknown reasons, Mapes' new book is titled "Truth and Duty" rather than "I Messed Up Big Time and I'm Sorry."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
October 14, 2005
Sixteen Children ... And Counting!
(Michelle Arnold)
You're 39, you've just delivered your sixteenth child, what are you going to do?
"I'm going to do it again!"
Is that a response that springs to mind for many mothers and many families? Probably not, at least in this day and age. (Although, centuries ago, it may have been. St. Therese of Lisieux was the last of nine children; St. Catherine of Siena was her mother's twenty-fourth child.) But there are still a few modern families heroically open to life:
"Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she's already thinking about doing it again.
"Johannah Faith Duggar was born at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday and weighed 7 pounds, 6.5 ounces.
"The baby's father, Jim Bob Duggar, a former state representative, said Wednesday that mother and child were doing well.
"He said Johannah's birth was especially exciting because it was the first time in eight years the family has had a girl.
"Jim Bob Duggar, 40, said he and Michelle, 39, want more children.
"'We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them,' he said."
Sounds like the Duggars have filled one quiver and are working on another (cf. Ps. 127:3-5).
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBack
October 11, 2005
AAP: "Prevent Crib Death By Putting Babies In Cribs!"
(Michelle Arnold)
Okay, BIG RED DISCLAIMER: I'm not a parent (yet) or a medical expert on this type of thing, or a medical expert on any type of thing, and you should not be getting infant-care advice from a stranger on the Internet. That said, I couldn't help but note this recent release from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
"Infants should be put to sleep on their backs only, not their sides, and pacifiers can be used to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome [SIDS], U.S. pediatricians said on Monday.
"Revised guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] issued on Monday also discourage parents from sleeping with their infants at all, saying babies are safer in their own cribs.
"SIDS, the sudden, unexplained death of an infant in the first year of life, is the third leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, causing the deaths of 2,500 infants each year.
"Campaigns to encourage parents and other caregivers to put babies to sleep on their backs instead of their tummies slashed the death rates from SIDS, also known as crib death or cot death, in countries such as Britain and the United States in the 1980s and 1990s."
Does it strike anyone else as strange that the AAP is advising parents to avoid SIDS, also known as "crib death," by advising parents to put their babies in cribs? I might also note that SIDS is extremely rare outside of Western society. In developing societies, parents routinely sleep with their babies and are bemused that Western parents put their infants in cribs that are often in separate rooms from the parental bed. (One very interesting book that explores these differences in parenting styles between Western society and developing societies is Our Babies, Ourselves: How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent by Meredith F. Small.)
Now, whether the "family bed" or some variant of it, such as a sidecar crib attachment, is the right solution for families is something that each family will have to study and decide for itself, and families should definitely consider what medical science has to say when doing so. But it just seems strange to me that the AAP thinks the solution to the tragedy of crib death is to encourage parents to use cribs.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack
October 10, 2005
Spaying Men?
(Michelle Arnold)
Well, it's not quite to the point of "spaying" men, of course (since men don't have ovaries to be removed), but apparently medical science is prepared to introduce a whole new line of male contraceptives, including pills, patches, and gels. But there are a couple of creases in Contraceptive Wonderland that have yet to be ironed out. Some men are cool with the idea of having "choice" but don't like the idea of medicating themselves:
"Forty-year-old Scott Hardin says he's glad that men may soon have a new choice when it comes to birth control. But, he adds, he would not even consider taking a male hormonal contraceptive. Hardin is like many men who are pleased to hear they may have a new option but are wary of taking any type of hormones.
"'I would rather rely on a solution that doesn't involving medicating myself and the problems women have had with hormone therapy doesn’t make me anxious to want to sign on to taking a hormone-type therapy,' says Hardin, who is single and a college administrator."
Other men are thrilled at the idea of "protecting" themselves. The only problem is that they are eager to "protect" themselves from the real or imagined evil designs of the women they mistrust but have no problem sleeping with:
"[Quentin] Brown has been taking hormonal contraceptives for more than a year. He reports no problems with weight gain or acne, two side effects that occurred in earlier versions of MHCs [male hormonal contraceptives] tested in the 1990s.
"Brown, who is married and has three children, hopes his kids will one day be able to benefit from the new technology. His would like his son, who is now 17, to one day have the option of taking a male birth control pill. Brown believes many men will see 'their pill' as a good idea and will want to use it.
"'It is time for men to have some control. I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans,' says Brown. 'Some women are out there to use men to get pregnant. This could deter women from doing this. An athlete or a singer is someone who could be a target and they could put a stop to that.'"
So, once again, contraceptive technology breeds disrespect for and abuse of women. Whether it is the sense that it is a woman's "job" to "fumigate" herself, something a man rightly figures he doesn't want to do to himself but has no apparent problem with subjecting a woman to, or whether it is a fear that women are conniving gold-diggers whom a man may use for sex but avoid further responsibility to, Pope Paul VI's warning in Humanae Vitae that contraception can only have dire consequences for the relationships between men and women is once more proven right.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
October 03, 2005
"PRIVACY, Senator!"
(Jimmy Akin)
HERE'S AN INTERESTING PIECE IN THE L.A. TIMES.
I'm not sure what's more interesting about it--its content or the fact that it appeared in the L.A. Times at all.
The author takes to task California Senator Dianne Feinstein and others like her who display what he dubs "machisma."
Of course, you're familiar with machismo--insensitive masculinity that frequently leads to blunt, silent behavior.
The author of the piece seems to conceptualize machisma as an insensitive femininity that frequently leads to blunt, talkative behavior. In particular, it leads to demands that others talk about their feelings.
EXCERPTS:
Feinstein asked Roberts how he would handle right-to-die cases. She told him to answer "as a son, a husband and a father." She wanted a personal, emotional response, not the cool logic of a jurist. Contrary to instructions, he answered dispassionately and not as a son, husband or father. She was displeased.
Her question was offensive on a human level, for reasons having nothing to do with the judicial context. She demonstrated a disturbing and widespread phenomenon: A powerful person insists that someone's private feelings must be spread out for public viewing, like rugs in a Mideast bazaar. Roberts' feelings as a father, son and husband are none of the country's business.
"Macha" characters delight in emotional disembowelment; in ordering their victims to let it all hang out. But lots of people have no desire for heart-to-hearts with strangers in public, much less on national TV. Macha is just as toxic as macho, or more so, because it's harder to laugh off. "How do you feel?" has become a standard media question, a substitute for eliciting actual information. Oprah and her imitators use it; news reporters covering hurricanes use it. Macha helps demolish the emotional walls that protect people, just as hurricanes demolish their physical walls.
In the long-ago age before macha, you called a person Miss Hepburn, say, until explicitly invited to use her first name — which helped English recapture the ancient distinction between "thou" (once the friendly, easygoing form of address among friends) and "you" (for addressing strangers or superiors). Lacking this distinction, English is all sweatsuits and no tuxedos.
When two people were not on a first-name basis, that fact indicated what kind of behavior was suitable and what wasn't. No child presumed to call an adult by his or her first name; no doctor did so with a patient. Friendships moved forward in small, graceful steps instead of lunges. Keeping a respectful distance and recognizing authority made the world not cold and forbidding but comfortable, reassuring.
In school, my boys have often been harassed by macha teachers demanding that they tell the class their feelings. One teacher had the nerve to tell one of my sons that his book report must "critique without judging" — and she marked him down for trying to analyze what was good and bad in the story instead of saying which passages got him all choked up. (How many teenage boys do you know who like getting all choked up — or talking about it?)
Granted, the demand strikes different people in different ways. Some students welcome it. My boys don't. Lots of people don't. For a person in authority to insist that lower-downs reveal their emotions is an abuse of power, a form of emotional groping that can leave the targets feeling violated and mad as hell.
That's the truth!
The author is on to a real social phenomenon here. I don't agree with everything he says (notably, I don't agree AT ALL with his assertion that Sen. Feinstein is "a sensible person who usually says sensible things"--but then this is the L.A. Times).
It is ironic that Sen. Feinstein's probings of Judge Roberts' emotional life constitutes a violation of what most of us would regard as private matters that we have a (moral) right to keep private.
Isn't Sen. Feintein supposed to be kinda big on a right to privacy?
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
September 09, 2005
The Boarding School Solution
(Michelle Arnold)
Parents who are frustrated with their local schools and wary of their own ability to homeschool may be wondering if boarding school is the answer. One boarding school alumna assures them that it is probably not the case:
"[A]n increasing number of parents are deciding against boarding school. Enrollment at private day schools has grown 15 percent in the past decade, while enrollment at boarding schools has grown only 2.7 percent. Overall boarding school enrollment dropped from about 42,000 in the late 1960's to 39,000 in the last school year -- even though, according to the Census Bureau, the population of 14- to 17-year-olds was more than 1.5 million higher in 2004 than in 1968.
"Reporting on this, The Wall Street Journal attributed the shift away from boarding school to a trend of greater parental involvement, which translates into parents reluctant to be apart from their children. This is, evidently, the same reason some parents are now accompanying their teenagers to boarding school; these mothers and fathers literally move, sometimes cross-country, to be close to the campuses of the boarding schools their children attend.
"While the new breed of super-involved parent strikes me as slightly creepy (having worked as a private-school teacher, I've also seen parents whose idea of "involvement" is doing their children's homework for them), I don't think the conclusion they've come to is the wrong one. Among the reasons I wouldn't send my own child to boarding school is that being around one's adolescent peers 24 hours a day doesn't seem particularly healthy. It makes the things that already loom large in high school -- grades, clothes, sports, heartache, acne -- loom even larger.
"Going home at night provides physical distance from the relentlessness of all teenagers, all the time, and, ideally, parents provide perspective. Although they might be dorky, parents know an important lesson about everything from serious hazing to the embarrassment of dropping a lunch tray in a crowded cafeteria: This, too, shall pass."
Maybe it's my inner fox eyeing the grapes dangling out of my reach, but there's some satisfaction in discovering that the most expensive educational alternative is not always the best choice for children. What counts is not the money a parent throws at the problem, but his own involvement in shaping his child's studies. A parent worried about his own ability to homeschool can at least take comfort in the fact that he is likely to do a better job at it than others who are unable to give the child personalized attention and parental values.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
Future Shock
(Michelle Arnold)
In his book How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, author Thomas E. Woods Jr. tells the story of how English monks were on the verge of introducing the Industrial Age to Great Britain when King Henry VIII closed the monasteries and destroyed Catholic religious life in England. As a result of a monarch’s greed, the Industrial Age may well have been postponed some three centuries.
It got me to thinking: What breakthroughs has our modern culture of death prevented us from accomplishing? Although we have accomplished a great deal in the realm of modern science, much of it has been devoted to both fighting and perpetuating the culture of death. The search for cures for deadly venereal diseases, caused in large part by the unchaste lifestyle of modern man, and the fascination with manipulating human life has taken up much of our time, energy, and resources. What if it had been possible to devote those resources to furthering the culture of life?
We can now routinely save premature babies as early as 24 weeks gestation, and have had spotty success as early as 20 weeks. That is no small accomplishment. But will future generations remark that if we hadn't been consumed with finding ways to murder first-trimester babies in their mothers' wombs, we might have been able to routinely save first-trimester babies in danger of miscarriage?
If we hadn’t had to focus resources to fighting the worldwide HIV/AIDS pandemic, could we have found a cure for cancer, multiple sclerosis, influenza, or the common cold? Would we have been able to reliably export to the developing world the medicines needed to cure childhood diseases that devastate youngsters in the Third World but are merely a rite of passage in First World countries?
If we hadn’t been diverted by the Cold War and the "need" to compete in the arms race, could we have redirected money used to stockpile weapons of mass destruction into helping developing nations reach maturity on the world stage?
If we hadn’t been consumed with an alleged "right to privacy," "freedom of choice," and "right to die," would we have turned our efforts to the rehabilitation (where possible) and comfort care (where not) of our disabled, elderly, and otherwise dependent citizens? Could Terri Schiavo have been rehabilitated, perhaps even cured, if our society hadn’t been more interested in warehousing and eventually murdering her and those who suffer from similar catastrophic disabilities?
How will future generations judge us? Somehow I doubt they will be impressed with our ability to clone sheep, walk on the moon, and treat (but not cure) venereal disease. They will be more likely to sigh, shake their heads, and note a lot of similarity between our society and that of Tudor England during the Protestant Reformation.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
May 19, 2005
How To Crush Social Rebellion
(Michelle Arnold)
Ever wonder how to sap the fun right out of non-conformity by teens and other social anarchists? Easy. You take their cultural rebellion and make it mainstream.
"As models flaunted head-to-toe body art and hard rock pulsated in a cavernous ballroom, veteran tattoo artists at a New York convention on Saturday wondered if their once taboo artistry was losing its nonconformist lure.
[...]
"Americans, especially women, are embracing a practice once considered seedy. A growing number of people are subjecting themselves to the whir of engine-driven needles spitting pigments into their body, tattoo artists said.
"According to some published reports, around 20 percent of Americans aged 18 to 25 are getting tattooed. Skin motifs are increasingly shedding their subversive image, some tattoo artists said. And women, who were once scarce in tattoo parlors, now make up about half the clientele, they added.
"'It used to be secret and underground,' said a man who identified himself as R.J. 'There's more tattoo shops than ever before ... anyone can order a kit and do it in his garage,' said R.J., who owns the Tabu Tattoo shop in West Los Angeles."
Of course the only problem with this strategy of mainstreaming rebellion is that the social misfits will go to even greater lengths to shock society. Which is probably one reason body piercings have gotten so out-of-control. When the thrill of piercing ears evaporated, the non-conformists began experimenting with piercing other body parts. So maybe we should continue to feign chagrin over tattoo art in the hopes that it will keep the non-conformists from desperately seeking other ways to horrify us.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 27, 2005
Waiting For Popot And The Pill
(Michelle Arnold)
Abigail Palmer has diagnosed the preeminent problem of American Catholics:
"American Catholics are the most spoiled Catholics on the planet. A Catholic in Baghdad just hopes that his church won't be bombed this Sunday; Sudanese Catholics hope that they can face another day without brutal, unspeakable religious persecution. In many of the dioceses of the world, a roof on the church or running water would be nice. And we, in all of our prosperity, want more ease. We can go to church when we like, say what we like, do what we like. We want, if it's even possible in this world, an easier life, a life less uncomfortable, and one that doesn't involve explaining 'arcane' doctrines to non-believers. The idea of prosperous people sliding into laziness and insolence is not unheard of in history. The real outrage is that it is happening to a people who has received teachings that extol sacrifice, humility, fidelity, and love of the helpless and lowly. The excuse 'But Zeus does it, too' won't work for us."
Go, GET THE STORY; don't come back until you do.
Back, already? Then, for Exhibit A in support of this diagnosis, Dale Price of Dyspeptic Mutterings renders another brilliant fisking, this time of Fr. Charles Curran.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
August 15, 2004
The Cause of Terrorism Revisited
(Jimmy Akin)
You know how you hear a lot of people, especially in the wake of a terrorist attack, saying that the root causes of terrorism must be addressed and that these causes have to do with poverty and lack of economic development (which is another way of saying . . . well, poverty)?
Here's a fascinating article that contents the situation is far more complex. In particular, the author suggests that religious ideology has much more to do with the spawning of terrorists than is generally recognized.
Excerpt:
Thirty years ago, when the terrorism debate got underway, it was widely asserted that terrorism was basically a left-wing revolutionary movement caused by oppression and exploitation. Hence the conclusion: Find a political and social solution, remedy the underlying evil — no oppression, no terrorism. The argument about the left-wing character of terrorism is no longer frequently heard, but the belief in a fatal link between poverty and violence has persisted. Whenever a major terrorist attack has taken place, one has heard appeals from high and low to provide credits and loans, to deal at long last with the deeper, true causes of terrorism, the roots rather than the symptoms and outward manifestations. And these roots are believed to be poverty, unemployment, backwardness, and inequality.It is not too difficult to examine whether there is such a correlation between poverty and terrorism, and all the investigations have shown that this is not the case. The experts have maintained for a long time that poverty does not cause terrorism and prosperity does not cure it. In the world’s 50 poorest countries there is little or no terrorism. A study by scholars Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reached the conclusion that the terrorists are not poor people and do not come from poor societies. A Harvard economist has shown that economic growth is closely related to a society’s ability to manage conflicts. More recently, a study of India has demonstrated that terrorism in the subcontinent has occurred in the most prosperous (Punjab) and most egalitarian (Kashmir, with a poverty ratio of 3.5 compared with the national average of 26 percent) regions and that, on the other hand, the poorest regions such as North Bihar have been free of terrorism. In the Arab countries (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also in North Africa), the terrorists originated not in the poorest and most neglected districts but hailed from places with concentrations of radical preachers. The backwardness, if any, was intellectual and cultural — not economic and social.
These findings, however, have had little impact on public opinion (or on many politicians), and it is not difficult to see why. There is the general feeling that poverty and backwardness with all their concomitants are bad — and that there is an urgent need to do much more about these problems. Hence the inclination to couple the two issues and the belief that if the (comparatively) wealthy Western nations would contribute much more to the development and welfare of the less fortunate, in cooperation with their governments, this would be in a long-term perspective the best, perhaps the only, effective way to solve the terrorist problem.
Reducing poverty in the Third World is a moral as well as a political and economic imperative, but to expect from it a decisive change in the foreseeable future as far as terrorism is concerned is unrealistic, to say the least. It ignores both the causes of backwardness and poverty and the motives for terrorism.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 14, 2004
Death of the Welfare State?
(Jimmy Akin)
In 1991 Pope John Paul II wrote the encylical Centissimus Annus, in which he dealt with economic and workers' rights themes following the collapse of Soviet Communism and the seeming triumph of capitalism as an economic system. While noting that capitalism unrestrained by moral values was a Bad Thing, he nevertheless notes its practical success. He went on to say this regarding the kind of welfare states that exist in much of the developed world, and particularly in Europe:
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need [Centissimus Annus 48].
Unfortuantely, with the exception of Britain, Europe has been slow to wean itself away from welfare state ideology. Fortunately, there are now signs that Europeans are beginning to realize that the kin of welfare state utopia they hoped to build is unsustainable and must be abandoned.
This blog entry contains some fascinating analysis.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Social Analysis | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 13, 2004
The Death Of The West Revisited
(Jimmy Akin)
Here's the story: Westerners aren't replacing themselves poplation-wise because they're having too few children. Meanwhile, Muslims are experiencing unrestrained population growth. Soon the West will have effectively depopulated itself (at least until there aren't any folks left except high-birthrate groups like highly conservative members of the Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon communities, who will launch the next phrase of Western civilization), and Muslims will be encroaching everywhere, leading to a global degeneration to third world status, exacerbated by Muslim fanatacism.
Right?
Well, not exactly.
The dire predictions of the death of the West may be a little premature.
Oh sure, some places--especially Europe--are depopulating themselves right on schedule. So is Japan.
But a new population study suggests the following items:
1) America isn't radically depopulating itself. Americans are the exception among Westerners and, although their birthrate isn't quite break even, it almost is, so we're more or less holding our own.
2) The Muslim world isn't having a sustainable population explosion. In fact, the urge to have fewer children is hitting the Muslim world hard, and some Muslim countries (Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey) are now sub-replacement level countries when it comes to birth. As modernization spreads in the Muslim world, birthrates fall there, too.
3) The death rate is going up in many places, and lifespans are shrinking. This is particularly true in Africa, where widespread HIV infection is leading to plummeting lifespans. It is also true in other areas, where the problem may not be AIDS. In Russia, for example, the average lifespan has shrunk by four years due to incresed cardiovascular disease and accidents, both of which are precipitated by increased alcohol abuse.
4) This one (like the last one) isn't really a surprise, but there are many Asian countries where there are now sharp, unnatural imbalances between the number of males and females. The normal birthrate is about 104-105 males per 100 female babies, but in some places the ratio has gone up to 130:100. These imbalances are caused by sex-selection (i.e., aborting female babies) in cultures that have a strong preference for sons and now have ultrasound technologies that can detect the sex of the child before birth. The imbalances have appeared, as one would expect, in China (where couples are limited to having one child per couple), but also in other places, such as India. This will cause a huge problem in 20 years (or less), when the young men want to get married and there aren't enough women their age.
So. An interesting time ahead, but one not quite so dire as some