tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51953232024-03-08T10:51:21.139-08:00Deep ThoughtConservative Politics, Commentary on the news, Analysis of culture, and the effects of theology on your life.
Home of the Airborne Philosophy Squad (Aristotlean)!Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-68949031018473641262020-01-22T21:43:00.002-08:002020-01-22T21:43:51.308-08:00A delayed returnWe'll miss you, Zippy.<br />
Deep Thought is back.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-23951015154779504512013-08-30T07:27:00.000-07:002013-08-30T07:27:49.758-07:00Abortion Harms Women - the Next Generation Over the last few months I have listened to the BBC radio, read various publications, and visited a number of blogs all discussing the increase in rapes in India. Many of these pieces are merely informative; most of the rest are shallow. A handful mention the large (and growing) imbalance between men and women.<br />
It is doubtless that there are cultural factors involved but also doubtless that the stark difference in the numbers of men and women is a key factor in the increase in harassment, rape, and sex trafficking.<br />
And of course only <a href="http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/04/rape-in-india-a-result-of-sex-selection/">one</a> media outlet that I have encountered has breathed a whisper of the cause for this great imbalance, the rest have never discussed the ultimate source of this surge in violence against women.<br />
Abortion.<br />
Even the single article I encountered in Time magazine simply mentions abortion - the majority of its discussion is about how 'too many men in a population is bad'. This is an interesting way to frame the problem, isn't it? Why isn't it phrased 'too few women in a society is bad'? After all, the situation isn't being caused by adding men but by killing baby girls, right?<br />
I am not shocked by the way this imbalance is phrased, of course. While sex-selective abortion in Asia, Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe is most likely to favor boys at the cost of more dead infant girls in America and Western Europe it is the other way around and girls are slightly favored over boys (the pro-boy sex selective abortion of Asian immigrants tends to hide this). Indeed, the concept that 'men are the problem' seems to be part and parcel of the '<a href="http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/feminist_public_school_system_is_a_toxic_environment">boys</a> are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-WAR-AGAINST-BOYS-Misguided/dp/0684849577">toxic</a>' <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765552031/The-war-on-boys-young-men-are-facing-a-new-crisis.html?pg=all">attitudes</a> of Western Liberals.<br />
The real issue, the core issue, is abortion and the attitudes associated with it. Indeed, <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/31/democrats-defeat-bill-to-ban-sex-selection-abortions/">sex</a> selective abortion is one of the most <a href="http://www.gender-focus.com/2012/06/01/sex-selective-abortion/">glaring</a> <a href="http://feminspire.com/why-sex-selective-abortion-threw-me-for-a-feminist-loop/">demonstrations</a> of the moral <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/at-least-9-states-considering-bills-to-ban-sex-selective-abortions-91318/">contradictions</a> inherent in <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-pro-aborts-refuse-to-condemn-sex-selection/">those</a> who <a href="http://chicagomaroon.com/2013/02/08/feminist-panel-weighs-selective-abortion/">support</a> abortion. While there is a strong majority of feminists and others who support abortion that call for it to be available on demand, unrestricted, and subsidized many of them struggle with the fact that the real-world result of abortion on demand is <a href="http://pop.org/content/feminisms-triumph-extermination-of-women-1335">fewer women</a>, more sexual violence against women, and shorter lifespans for men.<br />
In short - abortion on demand is demonstrably bad for men, for society, and <i style="font-weight: bold;">especially</i> for women.<br />
But, as many of the links above repeat in their own words, the majority of Western feminists want unrestricted abortion despite knowing the massive negative impact it will have on them and their own children. They are promoting the unrestricted murder of children not only in disregard of the crime itself but in disregard of the undeniable negative impact it will certainly have on coming generations. There is no possible way this can be seen as moral, ethical, logical, or even rational. The reference to abortion as <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/27/why-are-some-democrats-increasingly-calling-abortions-sacred/">sacred</a> may be literally true - pro-abortion supporters may actually treat abortion as if it were completely separate from morality, or even the source of morality.<br />
Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-79581226629830845652013-08-23T07:16:00.001-07:002013-08-23T07:19:54.159-07:00The Virtuous and the Vicious Aristotle tells us that when it comes to morals there are 4 types of people; the Virtuous, the Continent, the Incontinent, and the Vicious.<br />
The Virtuous person is morally good for its own sake. To be Virtuous,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect."</span></blockquote>
Aristotle illuminates what he means by speaking of temper. An irascible man (i.e., one who loses his temper often and over minor issues) is wrong because he is inappropriately <i><b>over</b></i>-reacting. The timid man (who never loses his temper) is wrong because certain things (injustice, for example) deserve our anger yet he is inappropriately <b><i>under</i></b>-reacting. A man with an improper excess of courage is foolhardy and reckless while a man with an improper lack of courage is a coward, etc. The temperate man is angry when it is appropriate and brave in an appropriate manner. In a similar vein the Virtuous man reacts appropriately in moral situations.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The Virtuous man is not conflicted about moral actions; his emotions and reason are aligned and there is no internal struggle to do the morally correct thing. Being Virtuous is a state, not a potential or tendency. And it is the state of understanding reality with both reason and emotion. Or as Aristotle and St. Thomas explain, a Virtuous man understands what is right, chooses to do the virtuous thing, acts properly upon this choice, and does not have 'contrary desires'. By 'contrary desires' they each mean the inner conflict of doing the right thing but wishing you could have done something else (such as not taking a bribe but wanting to have taken it).</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> Of course, not everyone is Virtuous; many of us do the right thing but have contrary desires or understand what the moral choice is and wish to do it, but still act inappropriately. Aristotle divides these groups into the Continent and the Incontinent.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The Continent man resembles the Virtuous man; his reason understands the moral good; he chooses to act appropriately; and he does act appropriately. But he suffers from contrary desires - he wants to run away almost more than to fight; he wants to indulge his lust rather than remain chaste; he wants to be stingy rather than pay the appropriate amount; etc. </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> In other words the Continent man is succeeding by self-mastery. By understanding the moral good he is able to overcome emotional resistance to it and accomplish the moral acts that are appropriate. And this is good because habitual success in this self-mastery over time can lead a person to Virtue where the contrary desires fade and are replaced with the proper alignment of reason and emotion as the result of virtue is understood by both the rational and irrational parts of the person. This self-mastery is the task of youth so that as they become mature they may also become Virtuous. Failure to master the self and properly align your emotions with reason can cause the Continent to become Incontinent, however.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The Incontinent man is very similar to the Continent man but lacks the same level of self-mastery. The Incontinent man recognizes the good and, recognizing it, wishes to do the good but fails to act appropriately because of his contrary desires. The man who wishes to be a whistleblower but does not act for financial reasons (from loss of position); the bystander that knows they should stop the fight but fails to do so from cowardice; etc. </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The incontinent man is failing from lack of self-mastery. With effort the Incontinent man may grow to be Continent and, then, Virtuous, but this is a great effort. With the wrong sort of effort the Incontinent man becomes Vicious.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> Obviously most people fall within the range of the Continent and Incontinent. Aristotle tells us (and St. Thomas warns us) that with proper moral and intellectual training and effort the Continent and Incontinent can either rise to be Virtuous or fall and be Viscous, as I mentioned above. In each case it is the habits of moral choice and action that guide the moral development of a man.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The Vicious man is an inversion of the Virtuous man. His core flaw is he cannot properly choose - he mistakes virtue for vice and vice for virtue. He sees licentiousness not as an excess, but as good, for example. The Vicious man may see greed, cowardice, stinginess, vanity, and boorishness as good and regard the Continent and Virtuous as fools. </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> As a result the Vicious man does not understand what is right, chooses to act wrongly, acts wrongly, and has no contrary desires. The truly vicious man may well cheat a family of their home, lie to a judge (sending his sister to prison unjustly), and physically bully an innocent child and yet sleep well at night, convinced they are correct in their choices and actions.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> The Vicious man is usually the result of the poor habits of the Incontinent man. After enough times of their contrary desires thwarting their proper choices their reason becomes undermined by improper emotion. Or, since their conscience is constantly pricked by their moral failing they decide, unconsciously, to correct the issue by rejecting morality. They, in effect, become irrational about morals in order to avoid the pain of their internal emotional conflict. Their improperly-ordered reason is a result of their improperly-ordered emotions and habitual actions resulting in an improperly-ordered self-love.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> Indeed, because of his twisted version of self-love the Vicious man will often strongly defend his choices even as his self-love is focused on material goods, possessions, and advantages over others. Where the Virtuous man (who has a properly-ordered self-love) will reject what St. Thomas calls the 'common vices' the Vicious will revel in the common vices and in excess, believing them to be 'good'. The Vicious man embraces debauchery as entertainment even as they reject chastity as foolish. Likewise the Vicious reject art the elevates for crude colors; they replace the beauty of the human form with pornography; they prefer drunken gluttony to the family meal; they replace fine music with crude rhythms; etc. </span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> In the end the Vicious man, however seemingly educated, regardless of social position or wealth, despite a clear gaze and steady voice embraces the crude, the crass, the foolish, the irrational, the common, the low, the shallow, and the false. And once embraced they hold it aloft, proclaiming these things to be cultivated, sophisticated, subtle, reasonable, rare, elevated, profound, and true and demand that others agree with them.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> Here are some pieces related to this article:</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> 1) <a href="http://www.refinery29.com/2013/08/51662/hbo-male-full-frontal-nudity">What makes premium cable so great?</a></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 22px;"> 2) <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/22/bradley_manning_is_now_chelsea_manning_the_press_should_start_using_female.html">What is his name?</a></span><br />
<br />Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-14147488687366892072011-09-11T13:49:00.000-07:002011-09-11T13:55:07.448-07:00<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: bold; "><span style="font-size: 21px; ">2,996: Janice Ashley</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: bold; "><span style="font-size: 21px; ">On the 10th Anniversary</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span><a href="http://www.dcroe.com/2996/">2,996</a> is an attempt to have bloggers place a separate tribute for each of the people who were killed on September 11<sup>th</sup>, 2001 on the internet. When I heard of the project, I signed up immediately. Not because knew anyone personally, nor because I thought it would make me a hero, but for more complicated reasons.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Ten years later, I am posting this, again, as I try to do each year.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>As a veteran I had hoped that the random assignment of victim to blogger might allow me to write about a soldier in the pentagon, letting me use a quasi-personal connection to add depth. I was not assigned a soldier; I was assigned a young woman. A young woman with a connection a bit closer than any soldier I never met. A young woman that made me struggle with this tribute for weeks.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>My struggle was about the focus of this tribute. At first, I wanted to avoid any mention of me, or my vague connection to some of the victims. I thought that this would make it more centered on the tragedy. No matter how I tried, though, it just sounded flat and dull. I realized that, for me at least, this tribute is about not “just” one of the 2,996 that died, but how we were all and affected. How each of these deaths touched each of us who lived. How the murder of these innocent people was an attack on each and every one of us, an attack that did harm by removing so many good people from our midst.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>My job at the time of 9/11 meant that I had business to business dealings with literally thousands of firms all over the world. While most of these clients were rather distant and impersonal, some of these connections led to friendships that last to this day. One of the firms I dealt with, if rarely, was Fred Alger Management in Tower One of the <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">World</st1:placename> <st1:placename st="on">Trade</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">Center </st1:placetype></st1:place>complex. On the 93<sup>rd</sup> floor, Fred Alger Management was in the area of the impact, blast, and initial fire of the first plane impact.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>Of the 36 employees at Fred Alger Management at that time, none survived.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>For the next few weeks a great deal of my life was helping firms in the WTC complex rebuild. One of those firms was Fred Alger Management. We did everything we could, as did thousands (if not millions) of other people at hundreds of other firms.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>After it was all over, I moved on to another job at another firm. In 2004 and 2005 I traveled to <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state> and visited Ground Zero. On a small handful of occasions I spoke of the work I did, and about the firms I worked with where everyone there that day died in the attacks. I realized last Summer that the attacks sometimes seemed more immediate to me than my own, personal, brush with death in April 2001, just a few months before.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>So, back to the beginning, when I heard of 2,996 I signed up right away. I did it because I know that there are many others who feel 9/11 and its impact every day. I need to talk about it, and you probably need to listen.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The person randomly assigned to me that day was Janice Ashley, a research assistant with Fred Alger Management.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>As I began my research I immediately hoped to speak to her parents. I was able to identify her mother and, with a long chain of friends-of-friends, I was given her mother’s home number. I called it, spoke to a person who identified herself as having the same name as Janice Ashley’s mother and had the same address – and insisted she was no relation.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>I spent two days thinking about this as I left messages with groups Janice’s mother is or was involved in, asking for contact. I left similar messages for friends and other relatives, all asking for some personal insight into Janice and her life. I was never called. As a result, I will respect the apparent desire for her family and friends for privacy [and I hope you will, too]. As the entire world fills itself with reminders 9/11 I am sure that the Ashley family is not alone in wishing to be left in peace while they mourn their loved ones.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>As a result, I know the following about Janice Ashley. She was 25 years old. She graduated from <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on">Oceanside</st1:placename> <st1:placetype st="on">High School</st1:placetype></st1:place> in 1994. She graduated from Cornell with a degree in English. She was an artist. She had many friends. She hoped to, some day, open a florist gift shop. She had a nice smile and was pretty in a wholesome, girl-next-door way.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>These little details are just that – the little, important details, the stuff you would put in a bio about a promotion to vice-president, or a quick ‘please introduce yourself” speech at a three-day seminar. Where we were, where we are, where we want to go will always be the important details. But it still somehow misses so much. It doesn’t tell us if she liked dangly earrings, or if she hated lipstick. I don’t know if she liked caramel more than fudge, or butterscotch best of all. Did she have running gags with her friends, the sort of familiar, well-worn joke that could elicit a smile with just a word and a cocked eyebrow? I don’t know. And I never will.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>Janice Ashley would be 35 years old right now, if she had not been murdered. In the ten years that have elapsed since 9/11 she would have certainly met new people, made new friends, tried new things, and forgotten her keys once or twice. She didn’t get to do those things. All of the people she would have touched were prevented from doing so. All of the people she would have become close to have been robbed of a friend. Janice Ashley will never marry, she will never give her parents grandchildren, and she will never look forward to grandchildren of her own. She was denied the chance to have these things.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>To the best of my knowledge, I never spoke with Janice when I called (or was called by) Fred Alger Management. Based upon what her family and friends say in other tributes and interviews, I think I would remember if I had. Much of the sorrow I feel about the death of Janice is for her family and friends, people who knew her and cared for her. But some of the sorrow I feel when I think of Janice, or of any of those killed that day, are for me and the rest of us who are still here. The attackers have denied us the chance to meet them, to learn from them, to love them. All of those people, 2,996 of them, were taken from us and we are poorer for it. I will never meet Janice when I am in <st1:state st="on"><st1:place st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state> talking to financial companies. I have no chance to see her on the street, or read about her promotion. I will never buy flowers for my wife in her store.</p><p class="MsoNormal">All of these rich, wonderful, frustrating, sometimes-boring, sometimes-sublime people have been taken from us. And we cannot get them back. The tragedy was a human one. The tragedy and the loss are ours and we are still learning just how big the loss was.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 0px; "></span>Good-bye, Janice. We all miss you.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The CNN.com tribute is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/3409.html">here</a>.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The legacy.com legacy is <a href="http://www.legacy.com/GB/GuestbookView.aspx?PersonId=126854">here</a>.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-16820040002609750172009-01-21T06:21:00.000-08:002009-01-21T06:22:12.291-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Who Decides? Part 2</span></p><br /><p style="font-weight: bold;">A Reprint</p><p>originally posted 1/18/07<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>In my introduction to education and homeschooling I discussed my conversation with Prof. Rob Reich, who is seen as an opponent by most homeschoolers, and his view that parents should not have sole control of the education of their children. His opinion was echoed in comments by Elliot, who feels that the government should determine what is taught to all children. These two people, along with many others outside homeschooling who discuss how to ‘limit’ it, or structure it, or regulate it, etc. all seem to touch on the core topic involved without quite realizing what that core topic really is. Even Prof. Reich, with a Ph.D. in Political Science, at first didn’t realize that regulation of homeschooling is about the power of the state to control or eliminate <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism">pluralism</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Pluralism is, briefly, the concept that in a democratic society there will exist people and groups that disagree with each other and that this is OK. In deed, some argue that this disagreement is good and that the resulting dialogue can lead to discovery. Yes, multiculturalism is part of this idea of pluralism, but pluralism is more of a realpolitik acceptance of reality than an attempt to make a ‘rainbow coalition’ of enforced diversity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In other words, pluralism is the acceptance of the fact that there are people who think <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish">electricity and automobiles</a> are potentially sources of personal character erosion, there are other people who hope and plan for the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthuman_%28human_evolution%29">transformation of mankind</a> into technological creatures with little remaining attachment to their human roots, and that these two groups coexist, already, in the world. While the Amish and Transhumanist have little in common, they are both elements of American society (and world society, for that matter). I don’t know Prof. Reich that well, but I suspect that if I told him I planned to create a program that would convince the Amish that their lifestyle was backwards, mistaken, ‘wrong’, etc. he would at least be disturbed. After all, the Amish, although small, are part of what makes the world a rich, interesting place. They both reflect and raise interesting questions about the role of technology in human culture and how we can and should react to change.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">At the same time, if I were to tell Elliot that ‘the State’ has guidelines that would force transhumanists to tell their kids (or, uh, whatever they consider their progeny) that posthumanist ideas are immoral, unnatural, or too fantastic to be believed, he would likewise be disturbed. While a fringe movement in as many ways as the Amish, transhumanists also raise questions about man and machine and how they can and should affect each other. The Amish and the transhumanists have radically different concepts of the nature of man and nearly-opposite views of the role of technology, views that they will likely never reconcile – and that is OK. Even if their differences in outlook and belief add nothing to the ‘greater good’ of the society around them, they are equal in their rights to hold their beliefs as they do – if we do, indeed, live in a free and pluralistic society.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I always become concerned when I hear discussion of what is good for ‘the state’ or for ‘society’, especially when discussing education. What if ‘the state’ we are talking about it, oh, Nazi Germany? Or Castro’s Cuba? Or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? All of these ‘states’ had clear ideas of what was good for ‘the state’ and made education a keystone in their creation of their vision of a better ‘state’, didn’t they? During the American Civil War the Confederacy had laws forbidding the teaching of literacy to slaves – once again, for the good of ‘the state’. When we look at the parents who taught their children that fascism was not perfect and Jews not inherently evil in the Austria of 1939, or the parents who teach modern Cuban children that speaking out against the ruler-for-life is not immoral, or Cambodians that insisted to their kids that a better life didn’t require the extermination of 1/3 of their fellow citizens, or the person who taught the children of slaves to read and write, we do not see someone who is working against the Good, do we?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">No, what we see in these situations is people want to pass on their own values, despite what intentions or convictions ‘the state’ may have, and that the most powerful way of passing on those values is through teaching them to their own children. This is something so important, so central to the very concept of being a parent that we really can’t imagine it being separated from the very nature of parenthood. It is also the primary method that beliefs and values are passed down through generations. Groups as varied as the Assyrians and some American Indian tribes knew that the most effective way to eliminate an opposed group was to force their children to be raised in your own group. This forced assimilation was accomplished by simply taking these potential enemies while they were children and teaching them that your own ways were the best, even the only, methods and beliefs. In no more than a few generations the former opponents would vanish, absorbed into your own group and holding your own beliefs.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Remember all those feel-good examples of iconoclast parents breaking the rules to teach their kids in defiance of ‘the state’? Here’s the deal – in order to allow those sorts of heroes, you must also allow the other sort of hero – you know, the people who teach things you disagree with. Right now in Sweden, kids are being taught not to trust ‘the Jew’; in London, parents are teaching their children that Blacks are shiftless and lazy; in China kids are being told that Americans are all greedy and lazy; in San Francisco kids are being told that homosexuals are deviants; in Canada children are being taught that that Hitler fellow may have been right about a few things. You may disagree with every one of those positions (in fact, I hope you do), but if you think you can ban parent’s from teaching those things to their kids, what makes you different from the Nazi’s who wanted to ban the idea that Jews are just people? Why are you superior to the Klansmen of Indiana? In what substantial way do you differ from the faculty of Bob Jones University in 1968?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Plurality and a free society demand that for free speech to really be free, we must, and I mean <strong>must</strong>, tolerate the speech we like least. Most importantly, it means that we must allow the transmission of beliefs across the generations. You don’t like fascists? Fine, teach your kids to not like fascists, too. But does that mean that a grandson of someone who fought for the Royalists in the Spanish Civil War can’t teach his own kids that Franco was fighting for the life and future of Spain? Can he not teach them that the Falangists were the good guys and made the nation a better place?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Or, for an argument closer to home and the American homeschooling movement, can you demand that a homeschooler teach their child that evolution is “right”? If so, why? Here’s another step; a fair number of homeschoolers, especially the earliest, were radical Leftists, not Christian Fundamentalists. Can you demand that they teach their children that Capitalism is “right”? After all, Communism is a total failure as an economic system (see: the Soviet Union, pre-economic-reform China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc., etc.) and Capitalism is the system that runs the Western economy. It is <strong>obvious</strong> that those narrow-minded, doctrinaire Marxist parents are doing their kids no favors by giving them a sheltered, even blinkered, view of the world. I say that the government should <u>demand</u> that they be taught the truth about Communism being wrong and Capitalism being right; after all, it is in the best interests of the children…. Right?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Still not a clear example? State after state after state has passed bans on gay marriage. The concensus is obviously that the average American is opposed to gay marriage – does that mean that homeschoolers should instruct their kids that gay marriage is ‘wrong’? No? OK, then why should it teach that gay marriage is <strong><em>‘right’</em></strong>? Because you think it is?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#Battleground_issues_in_the_.22culture_wars.22">list of contentious issues</a> is a long one with these just a starting point. It is important that the contentious issues raised by opponents of homeschooling are not about math, or spelling, or handwriting.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Prof. Reich mentioned during our discussion that he was concerned that homeschooled kids could grow up so sheltered, so narrowly educated, so focused on the ideology of their own parents, that they were literally unable to interact with people from a different religion in a meaningful way (I find it telling that he discussed this in the context of religious belief, not politics or some other cultural element). He wanted to ensure that homeschooled children receive enough education about other points of view that they can interact with them. I asked him if he was aware of kids so narrowly indoctrinated and he admitted that he does not, even anecdotally. He also admitted when I asked that public school doesn’t really educate kids for this, either. I think that this attitude is more important than Prof. Reich realizes. There are no standards for comparative religion studies in the public school systems that I am aware of – why have higher standards for homeschooled kids?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The NEA’s stated <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://www.nhen.org/LegInfo/default.asp?id=261">opposition</a> (well, at least in the situation mentioned) is about kids ‘not being exposed to people from a range of cultural and economic strata’ (to paraphrase). Now, I have no idea who diverse the students are in, say, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/yr03lrgsmlldists.asp">Blake Elementary</a> (with 11 students) or <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://iowaapindex.org/">Russell High School</a>, but if this exposure is so very critical (and I think that remains to be proven), then why must homeschoolers ensure it when it is so very absent from many public schools? Indeed, a great deal of the NEA’s focus in recent years seems to be <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/aug05/psraug05.html">beyond</a> traditional education.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Prof. Reich’s example was not about kids unable to do enough math to make change, or unable to read well enough to fill out a job application (topics we will touch on next time), but about the <em>cultural outlook</em> of children and young adults. Indeed, all of these hot button topics about homeschooling are not about reading (homeschoolers are better), or writing (homeschoolers are better), or mathematics (homeschoolers are better) [again, the next article will be in academic performance, so be patient]. Nope, even the ‘socialization’ bugbear is really not the main issue. The issues, the hot buttons, all the things that get opponents of homeschooling frothed boil down to <strong>cultural outlook</strong>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This is why many on both sides focus on evolution/creationism. Those homeschoolers who leave public schools because of evolution clearly state that they feel the public schools are being used to subvert the beliefs and values that parents want their children to develop and support. While many who want to force all children to learn evolution claim that understanding evolution is a pre-requisite for being a functional adult, let’s be honest – how many public-school educated adults (or high school seniors) can state what the definition of evolution <strong>is</strong>? [If you think that evolution is defined as “a change in allele frequency over time”, you got the question right. If not, maybe your education was lacking….]. Just as importantly, since many of the arguments for an imposed curricula is because it is for ‘the good of the child’ or ‘the good of the society’ or ‘the state’ – how important is an in-depth understanding of evolutionary theory to <u>you</u>?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I assume that it isn’t very important to your life at all. Unless you wish a career in evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology you really don’t have any need for an in-depth understanding of evolutionary theory. If you have a career outside of certain branches of biology, you might not need to know (or believe) anything about evolution at all. Isaac Newton developed calculus while quite ignorant of evolution, John Locke published his ideas that the legitimacy of government exists only with the consent of the governed 70 years before Darwin published T<em>he Origin of Species</em>, the Bill of Rights for the United States was written and adopted also more than six decades before Darwin published on evolution, and the rules of logic, reason, and rational deduction were developed in ancient Greece by men who explicitly believed in the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Spontaneous_Generation">spontaneous generation of life</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In short, those ideas seen as cornerstones of democracy (natural rights, the nature of government, equality of people, etc.) and of science (rational deduction, logic, mathematics, etc.) can, have, and do, flourish even in the direct rejection of evolutionary theory. The claim that a child must be taught evolution to be a ‘good citizen’ is ludicrous and the claim that a child <u>must</u> have an in-depth understanding in and acceptance of evolution to be prepared for a career is only true if that child <u>must</u> have a career in evolutionary biology.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Is there any wonder than many homeschool advocates, even ones with degrees in biology and a deep understanding of evolutionary theory, suspect that the advocates of mandatory evolution education may have, shall we say, a deeper agenda? The public debate between the religious and secular elements of society has largely been centered around evolution since about, oh, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species">1859</a> or so. While many believers in religion accept evolution as a scientific fact in varying degrees, some (especially Fundamentalists) do not. Despite the rather broad acceptance of evolution among the general body of believers, it cannot be denied that evolution is still a primary tool of <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/11/bad-for-kids-outspoken-atheist-richard.html">opponents of religion</a> who attempt to portray religious belief as inherently wrong. While some proponents of demands that evolution be taught to children are honestly only interested in a well-rounded science education, to deny that some are motivated by anti-religious prejudice is, at best, naïve.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This, again, cuts to the cultural basis of this debate. While the most often <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/reasons.asp">stated reason</a> homeschoolers cite for their decision to teach their own kids is to give their children a better education, over 38% cite religious reasons and over 12% state that they object to what the local/available public school teaches. These parents obviously want to control the cultural, moral, and ethical education of their children. I do not see how this can be opposed without opponents admitting that they want control of the moral, ethical, and social education of children to be taken, in whole or in part, from parents. Prof. Reich was kind enough to simply state that as his own position. Elliot simply states that parents have no such control if ‘the state’ decides that certain morals, ethics, etc. are ‘minimum requirements’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Remember those examples of parents bucking the trends and teaching their children their own morality I gave above? This is because in any society there will be people who disagree with one another – that’s just the way it is. When those people are a minority or distrust/disagree with some element of society they will attempt to avoid it and/or replace it with their own version of it. One example from the American education experience is the Catholic school system. When Catholic immigrants began to reach America in large numbers they found that the existing public schools were anti-Catholic with explicitly anti-Catholic sentiments expressed by teachers and textbooks. This attempt by the mainstream to forcibly assimilate Catholics was met with the creation of a separate network of schools built, maintained, and funded by Catholics. These schools were opposed by the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_nothing_party">Know Nothing Party</a>, a group that also wanted to mandate minimums in education for all children – mainly to make sure they were taught the ‘proper’ (read ‘Protestant’) version of the bible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Do any readers wish to argue that Catholics were wrong to want to preserve their culture and beliefs in the face of this hostility? If you think that they were, what do you have to say about the history of mandatory public schools as a tool to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Boarding_School">purposefully destroy American Indian culture</a>? After all, the intent of those who determined that American Indian children would be forbidden to speak their language and taught that their religion was superstitious nonsense had, at heart, the very best interests of those children. Did the parents of <strong><em>those</em></strong> children have any right to reject public schools and the ‘minimums’ the state had determined? To insist that they, the parents, could determine what their children should learn, thank you? According to Elliot – no, they didn’t. If ‘the state’ determines that all kids must learn that animism is silliness, irrationality, and superstitious; well, that’s a minimum to get by in the modern world, isn’t it? And Prof. Reich with his concern that parent’s not be allowed to completely determine what their children learn is just a few steps back, in my opinion.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">How about today, when public school curricula actively promote stances that conflict directly with Catholic beliefs? If parents concerned with these issues can send their kids to Catholic schools, why not homeschool them? The <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoder_vs._Wisconsin">Amish</a> won a long court battle that allows them to have their own schools so that their children can be taught as their parents wish – including not following the compulsory education laws. Why are the legitimate desires of the Amish to pass on their beliefs and culture worthy of being honored, but not homeschooling parents who happen to be, say, pagans?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This desire to strip parents of their authority over their children or to claim that the interests of ‘the state’ trump the interests of parents in their own children are, at heart, anti-democratic. The essence of democracy is that each person is inherently valuable and all are equal before the law. The natural rights that we pre-suppose when we discuss democracy include the rights to think, speak, and believe as we wish. Our children are, ultimately, the most powerful agent of change that exists in any society, especially in a democracy. After all, our children will continue to work, vote, and act within a democracy long after we are dead. People do not work hard to pass on frivolities to their children, and they do not sacrifice their time, money, and opportunities to educate their kids in things that they, the parents themselves, find unimportant. Homeschoolers do what they do not only to provide a superior education for their children, but to attempt to preserve and spread their own beliefs – in effect, to preserve their own culture.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Limiting this ability is, in the end, limiting the speech and beliefs of the parents in a very critical manner. Prof. Reich is stating, implicitly, that parents do not have an unfettered right to exercise their beliefs or to express in speech their heart-felt thoughts. Elliot is saying that ‘the state’ (which is, after all, the people in a democracy) trumps the desires of its citizens. In each case, the underlying statement is ‘you can believe whatever you like, I guess, but don’t expect us to allow you to promulgate it’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In many ways, the desire to determine what homeschoolers can and cannot, must and must not, teach their children is just a shade of the Know Nothings and the Indian Office. It is someone determining that they know best, or at least better. It is the belief that someone, either yourself or an ‘expert’, is better/smarter/better educated/more ‘mainstream’ than a parent and that you need to intervene in how they raise their child – for the good of the children, of course! Eventually, with enough education, you can finally get the population all thinking the right things, believing the right truths, and acting in the proper manner….</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">You ever read <em><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070219030501/http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060929871/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3139111-8101620?ie=UTF8&s=books">Brave New World</a></em>?</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-55407239983976226442009-01-21T06:14:00.000-08:002009-01-21T06:17:40.251-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Who Decides? Part 1</span></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A Reprint from my other blog experiment<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;">Originally Posted 1/18/2007</span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Just last week the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/index_flash.html">Religion & Ethics Newsweekly</a> program on PBS had a segment on <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1020/cover.html">homeschooling</a>. As you might expect from that paragon of not-being-Leftist-no-matter-what-content-we-actually-show called PBS, it was terribly narrow in its focus, skewing the presentation into a very anti-homeschooling stance.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">As usual, the focus of the report by the mainstream media was on two areas – 1) they’re crazy! And, 2) they are making their kids crazy, too! No matter how many homeschooled <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/578270/posts">kids</a> are Liberal and go to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.evergreen.edu/">Evergreen State College</a> (a rookery for the far Left), no matter how many <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com/homeschool/contact.shtml">homeschool magazines</a> and blogs <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com/homeschool/articles/vol3iss6/language.shtml">discuss evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology</a> so that parents <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://progressive-homeschool.blogspot.com/2006/09/carnival-of-homeschooling-week-38.html">can</a> discuss it with and teach it to their homeschooled kids, no mater how many homeschooling <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://progressive-homeschool.blogspot.com/2006/09/carnival-of-homeschooling-week-38.html">parents</a> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/articles.php?aid=98">have</a> a degree in biology or are professionals in fields such as Cell and Developmental Biology, and no matter how many homeschooled kids <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.homeeducator.com/Conference/dalebartlett.htm">go</a> on to be <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/index.php?id=321">accepted</a> at a major university to <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://norwichchat.gotoextinguisher.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=419&sid=b5d912655ca380a64ca5713e09bd4628">study</a> biology, the money quote for any, and I mean any, mainstream media discussion of homeschooling is where a parent avows “we don’t teach evolution” and at least one child chimes in with “I don’t believe evolution”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">This is obviously meant to paint homeschooling in a negative light.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The program also refers to homeschoolers’ higher performance in reading, math, college GPA, SAT and ACT scores, but quotes Prof. Reich of Stanford (a professor of Political Science and Education) as, well, dismissing them. I was intrigued by this, did some research, and spoke with Prof. Reich via phone. Mr. Reich was very generous with his time and opinions, especially since I caught him with an unsolicited phone call on a national holiday. In short, I believe that this particular article and several others I have found that quote Mr. Reich do a poor job of explaining his objections.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">In the almost 20 minutes that we spoke, Mr. Reich explained that he felt that current measures of homeschoolers’ performance are lacking for a simple reason – we don’t know how many kids are homeschooled. Therefore, we have no real idea what percentage take the ACT, go to college, etc. He even rejects the fact that homeschoolers perform substantially better on the ACT over traditionally schooled students because we have no idea what percentage of homeschoolers take the test – although he did admit that the self-selection to skew the results so much would need to be severe.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I find this a bit tough to swallow. After all, the ACT is administered to more than 50% of high school graduates in <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070503013247/http://www.act.org/news/aapfacts.html">only 25 states</a>, meaning that the ACT average for traditionally educated students is heavily self-selected, too. If the SAT or ACT was a universally-administered test for traditionally-educated students, but not for homeschoolers, he might have a point. As it is, he seems to accept the self-selected ACT scores for one group and to dismiss the self-selected scores of the other.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">He went on to state that most information about homeschooling is anecdotal; that for every ‘a homeschooler won the national spelling bee’ story there is an ‘a homeschooler was kept at home to hide abuse’ story, and neither type of tale really told the entire story. He wants, he says, comprehensive data on all homeschoolers, akin to a drivers license for drivers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">With just a touch of prompting he elaborated that his true concern is that some homeschooled kids will grow up so isolated from outside influences that they will be unable to interact with other citizens with different beliefs which is, he states, a problem. In a pluralistic society like the modern world, I would tend to agree that such person could be a problem. When I asked if he knew of any homeschooled people with such narrow outlooks, he admitted he only really knew of… anecdotes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">During our discussion he was adamant that he felt parents have a right to pass on their own beliefs to their children, but was worried that they would not make their children aware of alternatives. At the end, I asked if a fair summary of his concern is,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">“Who determines what homeschooled children are taught?”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">He demurred, stating he felt a better summary would be.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">“Parents should not have unchecked authority over their children’s education, nor should the government.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Since I did catch him with a surprise call and a pop quiz, I will gently point out that he probably did not realize that his position is, indeed, a discussion of who determines what homeschooled children are taught.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, in my experience the entire debate about homeschooling always gets down to that bedrock question – who has the authority to determine how children are educated and what they learn?</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-1905665470731564942009-01-07T06:20:00.000-08:002009-01-07T06:30:56.497-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Home Again, Home Again, Jiggety-Jig</span><br /><br /> Well, a little over a year ago I was very excited about this blog; I had been a Weblog Awards finalist 2 years in a row, my readership was up, links were thick, and I was posting regularly. So, on the advice of someone prominent in the blogging community, I got my own domain, switched to Word Press, and 'moved into the big leagues'.<br /><br /> Sure. My readership level did increase, but my writing frequency, length and quality all went down. I realize now that <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">if</span></span> I ever move to the 'big time' (whatever that is) I will be dragged there. This blog is something fun, not a job. When I treated like a job, it suffered.<br /><br /> So, once again, here I am. I will be re-posting the things from my brief experiment I like here and adding new content.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-70652423937430785282006-12-18T07:46:00.001-08:002006-12-18T15:19:32.817-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal">A Short Note - Update<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Deep Thought and the Airborne Philosophy Squad (Aristotlean) are in the process of moving. Not to a new house, like last time, but to a new location. That’s right, I bit the bullet and <span style="font-weight: bold;">got </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.deepthoughtblog.com/">my own domain </a>and am switching to Word Press!</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-82536301335454919262006-12-18T07:36:00.000-08:002006-12-18T07:37:25.528-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Quo Vadis?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>As the comments for my recent post on <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/12/kids-today-with-their-music-and-their.html">political and religious socialization</a> show, many people are still convinced that they world is becoming a secular one. I have received emails echoing the conventional wisdom that religion is on the way out and that non-believers are destined to rule. Even amongst many <a href="http://www.cceia.org/programs/current/5219/index.html">researchers</a> and <a href="http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/12/the_race_for_so.html">pundits</a> who see the future as one that will be increasingly Christian, they focus on the <a href="http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5399.html">Southern hemisphere</a> and the growing trend of southern Muslims converting to Christianity. They almost to a man ‘write off’ <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> as being, eventually, all secular, all the time. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>A <a href="http://epc2006.princeton.edu/sessionViewer.aspx?sessionId=1203">few</a> people, though, don’t agree, mainly some demographers and sociologists that are specifically watching trends in religion in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place>. As I have mentioned before and will <a href="http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/epc_berghammer.pdf">again</a>, religious women have more children, overall, than secular women. Again, the more <a href="http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/epc_berghammer.pdf">devout</a> a particular woman is, the fertility continues to increase. I will also repeat that children of religious people (especially religious mothers) are <a href="http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/staff/staff_dimiter_philipov.shtml">quite likely</a> to be religious themselves. In the end, the argument over whether Future Europe will be religious or secular boils down to two questions: first, are religious women having more children in great enough numbers to be meaningful in the near-term (in this case, 100 years); and, will enough of these children of the religious stay religious? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Let me introduce you to <a href="http://www.sneps.net/epk.html">Eric Kaufmann</a>, a professor with Birkbeck University of London. Mr. Kaufmann is a demographer researching, among other things, religion in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place>. <span style=""> </span>While everyone from me to Mark Steyn seems to be pointing out that religious women are certainly having enough children to overcome the moribund fertility of the secular, Mr. Kaufman is focusing on the <a href="http://www.sneps.net/RD/1-proposal.pdf">second question</a> by researching the combined effects of fertility and apostasy on future generations in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place>. His <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15563826/site/newsweek/page/2/">results</a> are very interesting. While he does agree with the conventional wisdom that <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> is still becoming more secular, he points out that this is a trend that will end. By about 2035 <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> will be as secular as it will ever be, at about 55% non-religious (this is also, I would like to point out, almost exactly when world population will peak). After that, the secular population will begin to literally die off, leaving the religious. In the end, Mr. Kaufmann predicts, the Europe of 2100 will have a population more religious than the <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> of 2000. He points out that it will be a much more socially and politically Conservative continent, as well.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Just to recap; demographers predict that the Southern Hemisphere will continue to become more religious. Current research shows that <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> will become more secular for 30 or so more years, then rapidly reverse and end up more religious than they are now. </p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-92130006213367700792006-12-14T11:28:00.000-08:002006-12-14T11:29:13.936-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Words You Just Don’t Hear Anymore</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_pitt#Relationship_with_Angelina_Jolie">Reprehensible</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings">Condemnable</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd">Deplorable</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544258">Cad</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Salomon">Bounder</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_lohan">Callow</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162006/gossip/pagesix/oil_rich_davises_run_dry_pagesix_.htm">Good-for-nothing</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_hilton">Demimondaine</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Hilton">Idler</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Richie">Wastrel</a></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-7839566559592700812006-12-13T11:25:00.000-08:002006-12-13T11:26:48.717-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Kids Today, with their Music and their Haircuts!<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>During my discussions of <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2004/10/spam-birth-rates-and-end-of-world-as.html">fertility</a>, <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-birth-life-death-ruling-world.html">birth rates</a>, <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/death-and-maidens-as-i-have-discussed.html">population decline</a>, and the <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/03/proud-vanguard-of-resurgent-patriarchy.html">future</a>, I have been fairly direct in my conclusions – the future population of the Earth will be smaller and more religious. I have had a surprising number of people counter that religious and political beliefs are not a matter of parentage, but of ideology. As one person stated ‘just because your parents are religious and Conservative doesn’t mean you will be’. Granted, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that some people from religious homes grow up to be atheists. And some people raised atheists become religious. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Statistically, however, the children of parents with ‘identifiable beliefs’ (i.e., they have an opinion on politics or religion strong enough to express it) are <a href="http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1943">most likely</a> to share their parents’ beliefs when they reach adulthood. The development of your political and religious outlook, called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_socialization">political socialization</a> and <a href="http://www.youthandreligion.org/resources/ref_socialization.html">religious socialization</a> respectively, has been studied, especially in the last 25 years or so, and shows that most adults reflect the religious and political attitudes of their parents. The various <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agents_of_Socialization">‘socialization factors’</a> that lead to our ideological development include family, school, peer groups, major events, workplace, marriage, etc. By far <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agents_of_Socialization">the most critical factor is the family</a>, especially since the vast majority of political and religious beliefs are developed in <a href="http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/workingpapers/WP2001-15.pdf">childhood</a>. Even the second most influential element, <a href="http://cla.calpoly.edu/%7Edgeorge/Faculty.Study/Pol.Soc.html">school</a>,<a href="http://research.yale.edu/gotv/?q=node/39"> pales in comparison</a>, even when attempts are made to directly influence political outlook with concerted school efforts. Indeed, researchers are coming to suspect that the main influence of school is as an environment where children learn the skills needed to promote and defend the beliefs developed at home. Thus, while major changes in life (leaving home for college, entering the military, marriage and parenthood) can cause something called ‘resocialization’, or seemingly-dramatic changes is behavior and outlook, the large majority of adults <a href="http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/67">mirror</a> the <a href="http://uspolitics.org/student/Chapter05/05syn.html">political</a> and religious beliefs of their parents. Research also indicates that, for children of Conservatives or Liberals, the majority of those who do not mirror family beliefs become moderates, not members of the opposite extreme. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>There is <a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.286_7.x?cookieSet=1">some</a> <a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6705%28199624%2958%3A1%3C41%3AMLCBR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0">evidence</a> that Liberals/Mainline Religious families have lower <a href="http://www.elca.org/research/reports/relsoc.pdf">rates</a> of <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_14_117/ai_62087408">positive socialization</a> (i.e., their kids are more likely to not be Liberals than Conservative children are to not be Conservatives). This seems to be especially true of Mainline Religious families who may have Liberal children, but those children are <a href="http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/workingpapers/WP2001-15.pdf">less likely</a> to be religious. The biggest problem for Mainline Protestants and religious socialization is that Mainline Protestants are usually intermittent church-goers, and thus their children are <a href="http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda3">less</a> <a href="http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda3">likely</a> to be religious.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>In brief: Liberals are likely to have Liberals kids and Conservatives are likely to have Conservative kids, but a <a href="http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2005/06/population-ideology.html">higher percentage</a> of Conservatives’ kids are like their parents. Devout parents tend to have devout kids, but lukewarm parents tend to have unchurched kids. Got it? OK.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Let us draw some conclusions. Given identical populations and birthrates, over time there would be a tendency of a group to slowly become more Conservative, since Conservatives have a slightly higher positive political socialization. Concurrently the level of religious participation would tend to sort out into devout and unchurched with fewer and fewer ‘sometimes’ attendees.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>This leads to the second argument that I tend to hear: ‘If socialization patterns favor Conservatism’, I am asked, ‘why the dominance of Liberal ideas in the 20<sup>th</sup> Century?’ The answer to this lies in another element of political socialization – major political events. Let’s skip the potentially-huge discussion of if the Democrats were really Liberal (as we currently use the term) pre-WWII and focus on a few events [This also allows me to skip the discussion of ethnic alignment with political party and its decline, etc.]. The first is the Great Depression. This led to a slight preference towards Democrats because of their support of social welfare programs. This tendency was reversing itself when the next political event came along, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Vietnam</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Opposition to the draft led many young adults to become Liberals. In both cases, major events led to a slight increase in political socialization towards the Left. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>However, even with these major events, and supporting events like Watergate, there was never a dominance of either Democratic Party or Liberal/Leftist influence in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. The nation leaned Right from 1900 to 1930 and even with the landslide Democratic victories in 1930 and 1932 a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition">coalition</a> of Conservative Democrats allied with Republicans regained dominance of both houses of Congress by 1937 and maintained that dominance for almost 40 years. Even the post-Watergate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1976">presidential election of 1976</a> was amazingly close, with less than a 2% difference in the winners. Ronald Reagan’s historic landslides and the Republican Revolution of the ‘90’sshow that even when baby-boomers were in their most politically-active phase that Conservatism was very strong in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place>, as it remains today. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>To put it another way, there was no dominance of Liberal ideas in the 20<sup>th</sup> Century. In my opinion, the late 19<sup>th</sup> and early- to mid- 20<sup>th</sup> Centuries are remarkable for the (relatively limited) levels of success Liberal/Left ideas actually enjoyed. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Besides, the growth of Socialism, Communism, major wars, and political scandals and their cumulative bolstering of the Left all pale in comparison to the effects of demographic shift in the last 40 years. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The facts are clear – Liberals have <a href="http://www.knoxviews.com/node/1943">fewer children</a> than Conservatives. Much more directly, the devoutly religious have <a href="http://epc2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60040">many more children</a> than the non-religious, and the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7308534&dopt=Abstract">impact of religiosity on fertility</a> seems to be growing over time. A <a href="http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n3/v7n3_4meyer.pdf">study</a> out of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region> illustrates how the impact of this cannot be understated. The study tracked a group of women from age 30 to age 40. It found that 22% were childless, 16% had one child, 35% had two children, 20% had three children, and 7% had more than three children. This means that 27% of the women accounted for more than 50% of the children. When the demographic, economic, and social factors were examined, the researchers found some interesting facts; women who had not cohabitated before marriage were more than 2.5 times more likely to have 3 or more children than women who had; women who had not planned their first child were over 1.5 times as likely to have 3 or more children than women who planned their first child; Catholic women were over 1.5 times more likely to have 3 or more children than non-Catholics. Toss in that starting young and having more than one child before being 28 also increased the chances of a woman have more than 3 kids, and you see a clear pattern -<span style=""> </span>Catholic women who marry young and start having children early are having much more impact on the future than their own numbers indicate.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Using the generic “80% of children share their parents’ political and religious affiliation” (instead of the ‘97% of the children of very devout homeschooling Conservatives share their parents’ values’) that means that about 40% of the next generation will behave in a similar fashion, representing a 50% growth in relative numbers in a single generation. With <st1:country-region st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>’s TFR of about 1.6 these political and social impacts will come faster than they will in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> with its higher TFR and immigration, but those changes will be reflected in every nation with a negative TFR.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>In the end, I stand by my position, which is: the demographic shift we are currently experiencing will lead to population that is increasingly religious and Conservative.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-55472998604377051302006-12-13T05:20:00.001-08:002006-12-13T05:20:49.896-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Weblog Awards, Again</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hello, and good day. The voting for the <a href="http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/best_of_the_top_1001_1750_blogs.php">Weblog Awards</a> is going to end on the 15<sup>th</sup> of this month, so I encourage you all to go and vote. As someone who routinely reads <a href="http://conservativeprincess.mu.nu/">American Princess</a> and likes most of the blogs I am up against, I can only say (like <a href="http://holymama.typepad.com/holymama/">Holy Mama</a>) – despite the excellent competition, why do I want to know how badly I am doing? Oh, and thanks to <a href="http://www.whereistand.com/adamelijah/18406">Where I Stand</a> for the nod. I think.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-47876900281992671072006-12-07T05:19:00.000-08:002006-12-07T05:21:50.371-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;"><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> and the Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Life</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>In June of this year <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place>’s Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare released their findings on <a href="http://www.jil.go.jp/english/estatis/esaikin/2006/e2006-06.htm">total fertility rate for 2005</a>, a number that has not been revised since. The confirmed TFR for 2005 was 1.25. This is lower than the previous year (1.29 in 2004) and quite lower than had been predicted in 2000 (in 2000 the prediction was that in 2005 Japan’s TFR would be about 1.4, as can be seen in the <a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html">World Factbook</a>). As I have discussed before, TFR’s throughout the world are dropping faster than predicted, even predictions from just a few years ago. The result is that <a href="http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/1864">Japan’s population began dropping last year</a>, two years <a href="http://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai3/2005/0715wp-keizai/3syo-musubi.pdf">before</a> demographers had thought possible – and their predictions were made in 2000. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>How surprising is this change? As recently as <a href="http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/1864">2002</a> the Japanese National Institute of Population and Social Security Research announced that the lowest possible TFR in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place> was 1.3 (which would be reached in 2007) and that the TFR would <a href="http://www.lec-jp.com/speaks/info_014.html">rebound</a> to 1.39 by 2035 and remain stable there indefinitely. This theory is now, obviously, discarded.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Attempts by the Japanese government to <a href="http://www.lec-jp.com/speaks/info_014.html">increase</a> the rate of childbirth have all <a href="http://web-japan.org/factsheet/welfare/angel_p.html">failed</a>, although they continue to introduce <a href="http://www.komei.or.jp/en/policy/05.html">new</a> <a href="http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2006/01/13/71103.html">plans</a>. These economic incentives, ranging from cash payments to parents, more day-care centers open longer, more parental leave, legal certainty that a mother would get her job back, etc., all failed. Indeed, as I mentioned above, the TFR fell faster than predicted after these programs were put in place. The programs also included steps to ‘<a href="http://www.lec-jp.com/speaks/info_014.html">increase awareness</a> of the importance and value of children’; during the <a href="http://www.nospank.net/japan2.htm">last</a> fifteen <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9757350&dopt=Abstract">years</a> <a href="http://www.crnjapan.com/abuse/en/">child abuse</a>, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7895142&dopt=Abstract">sometime</a> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1040139.htm">horrific</a>, has steadily <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,,1807045,00.html">risen</a> in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place>. Whether this is an actual increase or just better reporting is immaterial – in either case, a nation with fewer and fewer children continues to struggle with abuse in the face of both how few children there are and when government programs spend millions to promote their value.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Other stats look just as bad for <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place>’s future. As the population declines the number of households is increasing. In a country with so few children, this means more and more Japanese of all ages are living alone. The declining number of workers and the allure of Chinese markets, which is draining some of Japan’s entrepreneurs, have caused a <a href="http://www.americanmachinist.com/304/News/Article/False/39213/">shortage</a> of <a href="http://www.financialexpress-bd.com/index3.asp?cnd=7/31/2006§ion_id=4&newsid=32724&spcl=no">workers</a> in Japan; yet in 2004 <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment">unemployment</a> was the <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une-labor-unemployment">highest</a> it has ever been since records were kept. Unemployment figures in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> only account for people looking for work (stay-at-home mothers, for example, are not counted as unemployed), so this record level of unemployment masks the phenomenon of Hikikomori.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori">Hikikomori</a> (which translates to “pulling away”) are young people from the ages of about 15 to as old as 30 who simply never leave their parents’ home and, almost always, rarely leave their own room. The usually eat alone in their rooms, rarely speak to even their parents, and the majority seem to only leave their rooms at night, when everyone else is asleep. This behavior is so common that the Ministry of Health limits the term ‘hikikomori’ to people who exhibit such behavior for more than six months. In some cases, hikikomori <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/15japanese.html?ex=1294981200&en=7b1fdacbeb794332&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">have not left their rooms for 15 years</a> or more.<span style=""> </span>While female hikikomori are underreported (Japanese culture tends to spotlight male behavior) there is some evidence that hikikomori are abour 60%/40% male/female. Estimates for total numbers are tough, due to a social stigma that causes many parents to simply not mention that their child is a voluntary shut-it. The best guess, though, seems to be that about 1 million young Japanese are hikikomori. This is equal to about 1.5% of all Japanese of working age, or about 5% of all Japanese between 15 and 35.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>There has been discussion about suicide in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> for decades, but it is getting worse. The overall rate is more than <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FG28Dh01.html">three and a half times</a> the rate of the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> (which has a high rate, itself) and <a href="http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/9/3/284-a">suicide is the leading cause of death</a> for Japanese between the ages of 25 and 39. Since 1998 at least <a href="http://www.theforeigner-japan.com/archives/200304/news.htm">30,000 Japanese have committed suicide every year</a>; that’s almost one suicide every 15 minutes, all day, every day. Suicide rates are increasing across the board, including <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FG28Dh01.html">suicides</a> among elementary school-aged children and <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FG28Dh01.html">murder-suicides</a> where a parent kills their own child before committing suicide. Now people even join <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4071805.stm">internet</a> <a href="http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2005/0407/fo4-2.html">‘suicide clubs’</a> where they can learn how to commit suicide and work with others on their plans. As a result, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=564931">group suicides</a> are a <a href="http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2005/0407/fo4-2.html">growing</a> trend in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Another growing trend in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> is the sexless marriage. This is common enough that it even has a slang term; <a href="http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/archive/news/2005/08/20050824p2g00m0dm004000c.html">‘Narita ED’</a>. Narita ED seems to cover all age groups equally, indicating that it is related to culture, not age, In a <a href="http://whatjapanthinks.com/2006/08/28/what-goes-on-beneath-japanese-marital-sheets-part-1-of-3">survey</a> of Japanese married couples of all ages it was found that about 1/3 were chaste with another ¼ having sex less than 5 times a year. More and more <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-02-japan-women-usat_x.htm">single Japanese</a> are both declining intercourse and marriage, fearing a ‘disruption’ to their lives. This has led to the <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HE09Dh04.html">average age at marriage</a> being 27.8 years (women) and 29.6 years (men) with the average woman giving birth to her first (and increasingly only) child at 28.9 years of age. It also means that <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/HE09Dh04.html">the average number of marriages</a> per 1,000 people is down to 5.7, an all-time low.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>So what the heck is going on? Most researchers point to the flat Japanese economy and intone that ‘the long-stagnant Japanese economy is driving people to despair’. I say this is bunk. The Japanese economy began <a href="http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20050117_gyohten_japanese/index.html">rebounding</a> in 2003 and showed <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/08/japanelex.economy/">very</a> strong <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan">growth</a> through the middle of 2005 – hindered by a lack of skilled workers! As the Japanese economy rebounds unemployment is <a href="http://japan.seekingalpha.com/article/16145">dropping</a> (although slower than anticipated). If one of the prime reasons for suicide is lack of economic opportunity, why are workers killing themselves in greater numbers as their prospects <i style="">improve</i>? This makes no sense. The ennui that leads to the statistics we see above comes from more than just the economy. More importantly, high rates of suicide and the hikikomori phenomenon began when <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place> was going gangbusters, making it unlikely that a poor economy is, or was, the culprit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>So what is it that is taking the once-vibrant Japanese culture from being aggressively expansionist to apathetically self-destructive in the course of a mere 60 years? I have a vague inkling of a theory. As I mentioned <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/11/bad-for-kids-outspoken-atheist-richard.html">earlier</a>, religion is good for you. Religious societies tend to be happier, <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance/AFR">more fully employed</a>, higher earning, and have more children. They also have lower rates of depression and <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance/AFR">suicide</a>. <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> is perhaps the <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance/AFR">most</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan">secular</a> Western society on Earth, removing the positive effects of religion from its population. Also, it appears that there is <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/hea_sui_rat_mal/peo_pro_pop_gro/flag">some</a> <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/hea_sui_rat_mid_age/peo_pro_pop_gro/flag">correlation</a> <a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/hea_sui_rat_fem/peo_pro_pop_gro/flag">between</a> suicides and projected population growth. This could mean that despair means fewer children, fewer children in a society lead to suicides, or that both are symptoms of something else. In any case, the positive effects of religion are absent from <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. <span style=""> </span>At the same time, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s embrace of what they perceived as Western values after WWII led to it becoming in some ways the epitome of Western <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism">materialist and postmaterialist</a> aims. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>I believe that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> is showing us nothing more, and nothing less, than the ultimate result of a materialist, secular nation. The rejection of religion and mysticism, the detachment of morals and values from absolute claims, and the embrace of the government as surrogate family are all seen in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. The resulting society is the goal of any number of Western thinkers. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>In short, I think <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> is a warning.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-90047504038560965202006-12-06T04:14:00.000-08:002006-12-08T02:10:44.914-08:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">That's Kinda' Flattering </span></span><br /><br />It seems I am in the running for a <a href="http://2006.weblogawards.org/">Weblog Award</a>. Its for the '<a href="http://2006.weblogawards.org/2006/12/the_2006_weblog_awards_finalists_announced.php#more">Best of the Top 1001-1750'</a> award, but to even be mentioned with the blogs on the list is really flattering.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-23356585618743188662006-12-04T09:50:00.001-08:002006-12-04T09:50:47.023-08:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Inadvertently Funny</span></strong><br /><br /> Usually people are much funnier when they are not trying to be than when they are. Want an example? Go to <a href="http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_echidneofthesnakes_archive.html">this</a> link to Echidne’s archive, scroll down to the entry titled “Want a Headache?”, read it, then check the comments.<br /><br /> Well, it made <strong>me</strong> laugh.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-45001872232559908662006-12-04T05:21:00.000-08:002006-12-04T05:23:32.196-08:00<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Quote of the Month</span></strong><br /><strong></strong><br />"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."<br /> -G.K. ChestertonDeep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-35326223812806103012006-11-30T06:04:00.000-08:002006-11-30T06:07:20.120-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Bad for Kids</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Outspoken atheist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins">Richard Dawkins</a>, a biologist and proponent of evolutionary theory, not so long ago embarked on a new venture; a series of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F">videos</a> where he openly attacked religion. Called <span style="font-style: italic;">The Root of All Evil</span>, Dawkins claims in these films that religion is inherently evil because it is not rational and, further, claims religion is responsible for many, if not most, ills of society. He calls <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F#Sectarian_education">teaching children religion</a> a form of <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html">child abuse</a> and obviously wants to ban it in ‘the best interests of children’. Let us look beyond the fact that Dawkins <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Religion">admits</a> he knows virtually nothing of theology. Let us ignore the fact that the BBC would blanche at the mere idea of allowing a fiction story portray Catholics or Baptists as being correct and condemning those with differing beliefs as being in a ‘permanent state of infancy’, but have no problem producing and airing an atheist’s blatant attack on all religious believers, everywhere. Let us even overlook how Dawkins’, a self-proclaimed rationalist with advanced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Career">degrees</a> in biology and zoology, can be so concerned with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Other_fields">overpopulation</a> in face of the evidence that it is not, and never has been, a true concern (see the rest of this blog). </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Instead of looking at his hypocrisy (he mocks people whom criticize biology without understanding it, but refuses to study the theology he, in turn, criticizes), his prejudice (his assumption that believers are inherently inferior is quite obvious, and often admitted), or his use of mass media to denigrate a majority of the world. No, let us instead focus on… children. Dawkins claims that it is ‘bad’ to raise children in a religious atmosphere. Let’s do what he would like and – look at the scientific evidence.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>There have been a lot of studies into religious people vs. non-religious people. Since it can be really hard to figure out who really has faith and who doesn’t, statisticians (and other researchers) usually use the shorthand of measuring how often a person or family attends church, synagogue, or temple and calling people who go at least once a week ‘religious’. Sure, this may not be perfect, but statistically it seems accurate. What do these studies show? Are religious people, as Dawkins claims, infantilized by their beliefs?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Overwhelmingly, <a href="http://www.sundaysoftware.com/stats.htm">being religious is good for you</a>. Regular church attendance leads to lower blood pressure, <a href="http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4805959">less</a> anxiety and <a href="http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Depression/treatment/alternative/prayer.asp">depression</a>, <span style=""> </span>a <a href="http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=663">stronger immune system</a>, and are less likely to commit <a href="http://www.evergreenpark.org/departments/teachersites/boersma/files/WhatisHappiness.html">suicide</a>, all <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12095898&dopt=Abstract">contributing</a> to religious people having a mortality rate about <a href="http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews052505002.html">25% lower</a> than people who do <a href="http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060403_church_good.html">not</a> attend worship regularly with the end result that <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_28_15/ai_55410564">religious people outlive the non-religious</a> by, on average, seven years. Not only do religious people <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041226-104514-3168r.htm">live longer</a>, they are healthier and <a href="http://www.webmd.com/content/article/78/95776.htm">happier</a>, leading to a <a href="http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED312598&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b80047d6b">higher quality of life</a>! Indeed, the correlation of <a href="http://pewresearch.org/social/chart.php?ChartID=14">church attendance</a> and <a href="http://pewresearch.org/social/chart.php?ChartID=12">happiness</a> is pretty strong, and diverse. People who regularly attend church are more likely to have strong, <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_12_19/ai_90393217">lasting</a> <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000000901.cfm">marriages</a> where both members are <a href="http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000000901.cfm">happy</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Scientific research seems to point toward a result that surprises religious people not at all; they are healthier, happier, and live longer than non-religious people. Heck, religious people <a href="http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5327652">make</a> <a href="http://www.nber.org/digest/oct05/w11377.html?tools=printit">more</a> <a href="http://cbs4boston.com/church/local_story_104201659.html">money</a> and the sex is <a href="http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17700/article_detail.asp">better</a>, too! It should be obvious, then, that a rational person, looking only at the scientific literature, should advocate for more religion in peoples’ lives. Not only is it <a href="http://heb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/25/6/742">good</a> for them as individuals and families, it is good for society as a whole – after all, healthier, happier, wealthier people need less of the services governments provide these days.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>But I was speaking pretty specifically about kids, wasn’t I? And while we hope each and every child grows up to be an adult (and also, we hope, benefit from the advantages of being religious), they are kids first. Does religion affect kids, too? Yes, it does.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Research shows that <a href="http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17700/article_detail.asp">even low levels of religious life</a> make adolescents less likely to use alcohol, <a href="http://cadca.org/CoalitionsOnline/article.asp?id=779">drugs</a>, tobacco, engage in criminal <a href="http://tcdata.hmdc.harvard.edu/pndata/details.php?recordID=100139">activity</a>, become suspended from school, run away from home, engage in <a href="http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qauthor.php3?xxx=COLE,+BETTIE+S.">sexual activity</a>, or require emotional counseling. Religious children (again, even at low levels of church attendance) are less likely to drive drunk or engage in <a href="http://www.center4research.org/religiouskids.html">casual vandalism</a>. Church attendance improves <a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00221.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jssr">school attendance, work activity, and homework completion</a>. It even improves their chances of <a href="http://www.nlsbibliography.org/qauthor.php3?xxx=BROWN,+J.+BRIAN">escaping</a> <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:wgL3sA904UcJ:www.sociology.ohio-state.edu/jbb/brown_lichter_ALCR_2005.doc+%2B%22church+attendance%22+%2B%22childhood+poverty%22&hl=en&gl=us&amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a">childhood</a> poverty. As religious faith and participation <a href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=237261">increases</a>, the positive effect on children also increases. At the other end, <a href="http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/6/799">just having a mother that attends church regularly</a> also improves the odds of adolescents not engaging in self-destructive behavior. Religious children grow up to have <a href="http://ideas.repec.org/p/lec/leecon/03-16.html">more</a> <a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00221.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jssr">education</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>To sum up; scientific research shows that religious people are healthier, happier, wealthier, and live longer.<span style=""> </span>Religious children are happier, less prone to depression, more likely to get an education and escape poverty, and better at avoiding self-destructive behavior. These things are all positives for children. For Dawkins to oppose religion as ‘child abuse’ is to place his prejudices above the actual welfare of children. </p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-63463736755330308492006-11-28T09:34:00.000-08:002006-11-28T09:35:59.147-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Advancing the Aims of the Patriarchy</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>As my frequent readers know (Hi, mom!) I am a devout Catholic with four sons at home, and my wife, Deeper Thought (a stay-at-home mom), and I want 2-4 more children. Thus, I <b style="">am</b> the Patriarchy, and I am <a href="https://clarifyweb.southernco.com/WebSupport/ClarifyToDoList.asphttp:/andune.blogspot.com/2006/03/proud-vanguard-of-resurgent-patriarchy.html">proud</a> of it. Well, today I received confirmation that the socialization of my home-schooled sons is going just fine when my second-oldest came in from playing and announced,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“I am mad! My brothers won’t play ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ with me!”</p><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"> I think Deeper thought is still laughing.<br /></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-36572568091336465862006-11-27T09:40:00.000-08:002006-11-27T09:41:03.270-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Tides of Time</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Let us look to history and see what we can learn about the Catholic Church, its struggles and stumbles, its enemies, and the results.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The <st1:place st="on">Roman Empire</st1:place> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_Romans">opposed Christianity</a> and attempted to suppress it many times, most famously under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Nero">Nero</a>. Christianity was <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_christianpersecution.htm">illegal</a> from the time of Nero until the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:City>. In the end, the greatest empire on Earth became Christian, rather than wiping it out.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Islamic_persecution_of_Christians">Nazi’s and Italian Fascists</a> opposed the Catholic Church. Both regimes fell in just a few short decades. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Discrimination_and_persecution_in_the_Soviet_Union">Soviet Union and other Communist States</a> all opposed the Church, often strongly and with tactics that may seem oddly – <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=2&topic=atheism&topic_set=">contemporary</a>. Despite these attacks, the Catholic Church prevailed and was a direct <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=do3&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=pope+fall+of+communism&spell=1">participant</a> in the <a href="http://www.religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm">overthrow</a> of the <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3276657/">Soviet Union and its client states</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3276657/">French Revolution</a> attempted to suppress the Church and even it <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3276657/">calendar</a>. Attempts to suppress the Church were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clerical">common</a> in many new Republics of Europe at that time, some of which continued into the 20<sup>th</sup> Century.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>As can be seen from this short list, the opponents of the Church include some of the greatest empires that have ever exited; nations with seemingly-unstoppable military might, political power, and the will to annihilate the Catholic Church. In each case the Church triumphed over or outlived their opponent, or both. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>There has been some noise for a few decades that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council">Second Vatican Council</a> marked a huge change for the Catholic Church; that if the Church survives the modern era, Vatican II will forever alter its nature in such a way that it will a completely new entity. You can hear this from the Right and the Left within the Church. Of course, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea">there</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea">were</a> a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon">few</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Lyon">other</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Siena">ecumenical</a> councils that resulted in turbulence; the Church survived all of these other councils and, after a generation or two, continued on, dogma unchanged. While it is important that Catholic remain faithful to the Magisterium and uphold orthodoxy of worship, the doctrines of the Church, and Tradition, we must remember – we aren’t the first to deal with issues such as these.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>From heretics like the Arians and Gnostics, political foes like the Soviet Union, military foes like the Caliphate, ideological foes like Dawkins, and even internal dissent and schism, the Church has already seen it. Seen it, weathered it, and persevered. The tides of time may ebb and flow, but the Rock shall always remain.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-59869804481015401562006-11-27T07:01:00.000-08:002006-11-27T07:02:31.616-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Thankful</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>As is usual, I did not write over the holiday weekend. While I plan for this to be the last weekend that I go on hiatus for a holiday, it was still a fact. So today I will post a short, incomplete list of those things that I am thankful for:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">My Faith</span> – I came to the Catholic Church relatively late in life. God is now the pivot of my life and my faith and His Church its foundation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">My Family</span> – My wife and children are the greatest gifts I will ever receive. What I do in life, I do for them and my parents.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">My Gifts</span> – I have certain talents. Limited as they are, I am glad to have them and to be able to use them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">My Freedom</span> – I have been in countries where you are not free to speak, or travel, or worship as you wish. I know people that have lived under conditions ranging from censorship to dictatorship. I am profoundly thankful to live in a free nation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-1416674004828174492006-11-20T04:10:00.000-08:002006-11-20T04:12:27.158-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Is SNL Getting Funny again?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/19/video-snl-on-islamophobia/">Maybe</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">H/T to Hot Air</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-82041838979273239612006-11-16T09:15:00.000-08:002006-11-16T09:16:59.873-08:00<p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Those Who Cannot Look in the Mirror</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>If you haven’t noticed, I tend to write about <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/search/label/Population%2FDemographics">population and demographics</a> from time to time. I am not alone, of course; there are a number of Conservative and Moderate people discussing birth rates and such out there. There is also a strain of commentary on Liberal blogs - especially Feminist blogs, mainly mocking Conservatives that want kids.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>I have noted again and again that these Feminists seem to think that Conservatives are racists. I have covered many of the ways that the facts of racial violence show that these <a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/search/label/Prejudice">stereotypes are wrong</a>, but this lumping of “Conservatives are racist” and “wanting large families is about racial supremacy” stuff is getting so ludicrous that I figured I’d take a look.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>First, we find that our erstwhile source of all things Feminist - as long as they are radical things - Amanda at <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://pandagon.net/">Pandagon</a></span></u> points out that not only are people who want large families racist… they are <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/11/10/reminder-the-anti-choice-movement-is-genocidal/">genocidal</a></span></u> (actually, see ascribes a genocidal motive to all those who oppose abortion, but we‘ll help her out by focusing on just proponents of large families). Reading the comments on Amanda’s post will reveal an echo-chamber of people more than willing to proclaim that all who want large families are racist, genocidal, and (by strong implication) fascist. They also refer to a commenter who posted that he was interested in ‘preserving his own culture’ as a ‘racist misogynist’ whom the moderator called on the others to ignore. Now, far be it from me to claim that Liberals/Feminists must act a certain way, but - isn’t this commenter right to <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism">value his own culture</a></span></u>? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>I visited a number of quiver full sites online. <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.fullquivermission.com/">You</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull">can</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.raisinggodlytomatoes.com/index.html">see</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.quiverfull.org/">many</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.quiverfull.com/">of</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/valueof.htm">them</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000199.php">for</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.lotsofkids.com/LOK-Features/quiver/quiverfull.htm">yourself</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/When_Your_Quiver_Overflows-Testimony.htm">and</a></span></u> a <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=lKz&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22quiver+full%22&btnG=Search">search</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http:///">can</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://bellsouthpwp.net/e/w/ewenste/quiverfulllinks.html">find</a></span></u> you <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=RMz&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=quiverfull&btnG=Search">more</a></span></u>. I searched pretty carefully and I found that these sites have quite a bit in common; they tend to advocate large families (no surprise), they love kids (no surprise), and they don’t talk about race. At all. The only reference I found at all related to race was one mention of a speech by Teddy Roosevelt when Teddy, not the author, spoke of declining fertility in White women in the early 1900’s. That’s it. I do admit, if you google ‘+quiver full +supremacy’ and look at the religious/quiver full sites that <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bquiverfull+%2Bsupremacy&hl=en&hs=TPz&lr=&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10&sa=N">result</a></span></u>, there is a discussion of supremacy. But it is the Supremacy of Christ, not a race.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>Some of the “Progressive” sites you find, though, do speak of race. An <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/joyce">article</a></span></u> in <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/">The Nation</a></span></u>(not the most Right-leaning of papers, of course) speaks of the quiver full movement and, as it does so, mentions race twice; first by claiming that “race suicide” is a subtext to the quiver full movement (with no citation, naturally); and, once again, a reference to a quote by Teddy Roosevelt about White birth rates over a century ago. From this article you get the Pandagon bit, mentioned above, and a <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/">few</a></span></u> related <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/">posts</a></span></u> from the Left <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://opit.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/tuesdays-first-look-at-the-web/">side</a></span></u> of the blogs, all claiming having many children for religious reasons is racist, almost all pointing to the Nation article or to Amanda’s post. <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://country2.blogspot.com/2005/04/natalism-gazing.html">Some</a></span></u> even claim being pro-large families at all is evil. There is also a Newsweek article on the quiver full movement, but it makes <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15701301/site/newsweek/page/2/">no leaps</a></span></u> as far as racial motivations. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>The quiver full movement <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/Mommy2myBlessings/72077/">almost</a></span></u> completely <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.haloscan.com/comments/spunkypundit/116328371296874861/">dismisses</a></span></u> the Leftist claims that they are racist, only <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.worldmagblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=19191">pausing</a></span></u> occasionally to point out that Christianity has a lot of non-White members and that the quiver full movement calls on all Christians to have children as a blessing of God. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>While we have some fairly prominent Feminist bloggers making the charge that wanting a large family is racist, even genocidal, the movement they point to this time is pretty obviously race-blind. Pandagon and the other Feminist blogs like to paint the Catholic Church as racist, but of course, the Church is <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_7_118/ai_71949662">very multi-ethnic</a></span></u> and always has been. So where is this hateful accusation coming from? Well, I have a theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>It is, in short, <b><u>projection</u></b>. The Left, always quick to dodge reality when it suits them, is <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">projecting</a></span></u> their own biases onto their ideological opponents. I’ve already gone into <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/08/rednecks-white-power-and-blue-states.html">detail</a></span></u> about how people in the North and West deride Southerners as racist bigots when, in fact, the North and West have much higher rates of race-motivated crime. I have also discussed how Liberals denounce Conservatives as racist and discriminatory despite the fact that studies show Conservatives to be race-blind while <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/08/rednecks-white-power-and-blue-states.html">Liberals favor Whites over minorities</a></span></u>. In both cases, Liberals accuse others of the actions that Liberals, themselves, exhibit. They cling to these notions of how ‘the other’ acts despite the evidence to the contrary. So why is Amanda of Pandagon and her comrades so eager to point to the Right and claim that people who refuse to use contraception are genocidal? That’s a rather simple one, really.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>Its because the origins of modern contraception use, especially the founding of Planned Parenthood and the development of the birth control pill, were covertly and overtly racist and genocidal, with a strong underpinning of elitism thrown in. The founder of Planned Parenthood and primary source of funds for the research that culminated in the birth control pill was Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger’s <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.armyofgod.com/Racism.html">support</a></span></u> of eugenics is widely known, as are the many statements she made disparaging the <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#On_the_relation_between_eugenics_and_politics:_">mentally ill</a></span></u>, the <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#%E2%80%9Cracial_responsibility%E2%80%9D">retarded</a></span></u>, and the ‘<u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#On_the_disabled:">unfit</a></span></u>’, Of course, she also said the same things about <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#The_Negro_Project">Blacks</a></span></u> and the <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#Sanger_on_Charity">poor</a></span></u>, <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/population/pc0027.html">too</a></span></u>. While <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/07/08/more-smearing-of-margaret-sanger-corrected/">some</a></span></u> try to <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://pppasadena.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml">distance</a></span></u> Ms. Sanger from the horrors of Nazi Germany, they have great trouble doing so since her <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/%7Erauch/abortion_eugenics/peterson.html">support</a></span></u> of Fascists was fairly evident. Her defenders are in the rather uncomfortable position of admitting that she worked closely with, supported, and <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL07/margaret_sanger_and_planned_pare.htm">was supported by racists and fascists</a></span></u>, she made a lot of comments that might seem racist or fascist, but you can’t pin her down to a definitively racist or fascist quote. That’s pretty shaky. She hoped that incentives would work to reduce the population of ‘undesirables’, but advocated <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/bal/sanger.html#Sanger_on_Forced_Sterilization_">coercion and force</a></span></u> if incentives failed. Showing that she certainly believed that she and other experts knew what was best for everyone and was willing to use force to impose it. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>“OK,” you say, “Sanger was a eugenicists and, possibly, a racist and, maybe, a support of fascism. So what? That was years ago!”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>Really? Who is the primary focus of Planned Parenthood today? The same groups Sanger targeted - <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL07/margaret_sanger_and_planned_pare.htm">minorities</a></span></u> and the poor. Analysts <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT">noted</a></span></u> in the 1980’s that Planned Parenthood focused its efforts on poor urban minority areas, resulting in 33% of abortions being performed on <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.blackgenocide.org/">minority</a></span></u> <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.topix.net/forum/news/opinion/TNMV1ER78OGK5LRAU">women</a></span></u> who made up less than 20% of the total population. Contemporary <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/moderneugenics.html">advocates</a></span></u> of contraception and abortion continue to see these two things as means of <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060720_148057.htm">eliminating</a></span></u> the poor, the ignorant and the <a href="http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion.html">unhealthy</a> - and these same advocates are intimately involved in groups that advocate policies of government-promoted and funded contraception and abortion. A list of proponents of eugenics reveals a broad group, to be <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eugenicists">sure</a></span></u>, but a group with a bias toward the Left with some rather prominent <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw">names</a></span></u> as large <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Stopes">boosters</a></span></u> of contraception and family planning<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>The end result is that we see that the birth of the ‘family planning’ movement was in the midst of Liberal eugenicists. Planned Parenthood and related groups flourished under the umbrella of eugenics and ‘racial improvement’. Abortion was as much a part of the eugenicists’ arsenal as forced sterilization (and, often, more prominent). To this day groups that advocate ‘family planning’ specifically target the poor and minorities, resulting in a much higher incidence of abortions in those same groups. Call it what you will, but the end result of contemporary family planning is virtually identical to the planned results of the eugenics movements of the pre-WWII era.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><span style=""> </span>Access to abortion and contraception combined with the attitude that children are a financial burden has resulted in plummeting birthrates in North America, South America, Europe, <st1:country-region st="on">Australia</st1:country-region>, Asia, and North Africa with indicators that the rest of <st1:place st="on">Africa</st1:place> will rapidly join in. In a number of countries abortion is being used to <u><span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/death-and-maidens-as-i-have-discussed.html">eliminate women before they are even born</a></span></u>. All these facts reveal why Feminists <b>must</b> denigrate women who want large families.<span style=""> </span>For if they were to admit the possibility of merit in large families, they must examine the consequences of their own attitudes and actions. Such an examination would reveal that, regardless of their stated motives, the end results of Feminists’ advocacy for ‘family planning’ are indistinguishable from the hopes and dreams of the ‘racial hygienists’ of the late 1800’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-71531238835590081032006-11-14T07:28:00.000-08:002006-11-14T07:29:47.353-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Endorsed by the Left</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>The Progressives of the blogosphere at the Daily Kos are, it seems, in agreement that <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> is a <a href="http://tiggers-thotful-spot.dailykos.com/">horrible</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Nazi">horrible</a> place to live because it is a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/10/132921/431">fascist</a> <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/29/191619/98">theocracy</a>. There is, however, a wonderful land of <a href="http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/ateqeh_executed_27804.shtml">equity</a>, <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/iran_killing_ki.html">justice</a>, <a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00402.htm">Leftist</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran#The_closed_loop_of_power">politics</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Corporal_and_capital_punishment">peace</a> – The<b style=""> actual </b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps">fascist</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Religious_Issues">theocracy</a> of the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/13/73625/672">Islamic Republic of Iran</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>I hear that <st1:place st="on">Kos</st1:place> may get an invitation to the groundbreaking ceremony for the Khomeini Memorial Peaceful Nuclear Research Facility for Hastening the Destruction of Israel™. </p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-67303874229073401152006-11-10T09:08:00.000-08:002006-11-10T09:10:05.430-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Newest Phase of Feminism</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/11/09/the-baby-jesus-is-laughing/#comments">Making fun of little girls</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>My personal favorite is the repeated assertions by the bloggers and many of their commenters that mocking a crying 8-year old child is OK because she is dressed funny, carries a doll, and has a Conservative father is not only acceptable, but actively funny. The internal inconsistencies just keep coming.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195323.post-53215338761938635422006-11-09T06:29:00.000-08:002006-11-09T06:30:23.179-08:00<p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">I am an American!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><a href="http://theanchoressonline.com/">Anchoress</a> brought up a subject that I have touched on before – American Culture. I talk about American culture fairly often, a trait begun by a chance encounter in 1985. A friend of a friend invited me to dinner with a small group. This was a pleasant gesture, since they were all mid-20’s grad students and I was an 18 year-old soldier. We had a nice afternoon of seafood with more people joining the circle as the evening went on, including the boyfriend of the girl who had invited me, a Frenchman in his mid-30’s who taught at the college the others attended. It was only a few minutes after he arrived that I heard his reply to a statement I had not heard,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“Of course, there is no such thing as American culture, let alone cuisine.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>This elicited a chorus of nods and muttered agreement from the students – and my ire. I immediately interrupted,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“What about baseball and football?” I asked.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“You cannot win cricket or soccer, so you play easier games.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“Baked beans, scrapple, corn bread, and hush puppies are certainly American!” I argued.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“And no civilized person can eat any of them.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“OK, you made me do it – jazz!” I said.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>He shut up. I had met this man before, but that time he had been complaining about <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> – how expensive everything was, how hard it was to get a good job, the cars were small, taxes were high, etc. Yet he was more than willing to criticize the nation that he found warm, welcoming, and fruitful. Infuriatingly, the other Americans with me had just sat there, agreeing with him. Including a woman pursuing a master’s in American History!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Since then, I have been a proponent of the simple fact that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> does have a unique culture and it does have unique, if obscure, cuisine. Anchoress <a href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/11/07/what-is-american-culture/">points</a> to a very clear element of American culture; cartoons. <a href="http://looneytunes.warnerbros.com/web/homepage/homepage.jsp">Looney Tunes</a>, <a href="http://www.tomandjerryonline.com/">Tom and Jerry</a>, and the like are very much a part of the American psyche. This is largely because of the American media culture; <st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region> produces a vast number of feature-length films each year and <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Hollywood</st1:place></st1:City> has dominated world cinema since the 1920’s. Some people even claim that it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_cinema">wrong to call American movies ‘foreign films’</a> in <i style="">any</i> English-speaking market, since they are the dominant films in all such areas. American films <a href="http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/15/4/501.pdf">also</a> dominate most non-English markets. Even in nations with a strong local cinema, like Italy or France, film makers are relying on government <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344510/news">subsidies</a> (sometimes large ones) to make films and use <a href="http://www.american.edu/ted/frenchtv.htm">quotas</a> to limit the number of American productions that can be seen in theaters or on television, yet are still seeing American movies <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0412/is_n3_v23/ai_17923441">strip away</a> hundreds of millions of euros in revenue from their local markets. Despite the sneers you sometimes hear that Americans only <a href="http://torncurtain.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-find-solace-in-dog-stealing.html">like</a><a href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071054"> explosions</a>, not real film, it appears the rest of the world trusts our opinions; films that do well in <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> are eagerly anticipated overseas because <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0412/is_n3_v23/ai_17923441">they trust our taste in movies</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>So the various regional identities of America (Northeast, Mid-West, South, California) are tied together with movies and TV; and this obviously viable culture (witness the popularity of not just our films but our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_%28TV_series%29">TV</a> overseas) means that non-Americans find it rich and valuable, too. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_the_United_States">music</a> is also a world-wide constant, with everything from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz">jazz</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music">rock</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music">rap</a> being the obvious choices. But American music like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_music">Gospel</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues">Blues</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_music">Country</a>, and even various forms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_folk_music#Appalachia">Folk</a> music are widely heard and often wildly popular overseas. I’ve heard Australian Country (pretty good) and South African Country (also pretty good), French Rap (didn’t care for it) and Hebrew Rap (not too bad), and who can forget the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Elvises">Red Elvises</a>?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Popular <a href="http://costume.osu.edu/exhibitions/fas/">fashion</a> is also often dominated by American <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_fashion_designers">trends</a>, especially on the street. American clothes, especially American trademarks, are immensely popular everywhere, and the American ‘urban style’ is widely copied in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place>. Nikes, hoodies, and such are everywhere, but so are cowboy boots. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Of course, <a href="http://www.frugalfun.com/amernatlfood.html">American</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_the_United_States">cuisine</a> is rich, varied, subtle – and ignored outside <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Heck, its ignored in American commercial cooking – you know, McDonald’s, Applebee’s, Chili’s, etc. The traditional American foods, like sweet potato pie and fritters, are only cooked at home, usually. The mainstream commercial kitchens produce things that, while American, lack the richness and subtlety of things like key lime pie (the real stuff) or seasoned collards with a plate of hoppin’ john. The commercial food of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> is burgers, hot dogs, French fries, and milk shakes. Although good, these are rather blunt dishes. They are <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/05june00/goldberg060500.html">despised</a> by <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1324807,00.html">others</a>… yet, they are also <a href="http://www.americansinfrance.net/Culture/McDonalds_In_France.cfm">stunningly</a> <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_02/b3815047.htm">popular</a> with a new McDonald’s opening all the time – in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region>. American fast food is coming to dominate French daily casual lunches in urban areas, and American fast food is also beginning to spread in <a href="http://england.visualenc.com/general/food.html">England</a>, <a href="http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?ID=84062&lk=np">Russia</a>, and <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OQC/is_2_3/ai_100409402">Brazil</a> and already dominates the casual daily food market of a stunning number of countries. <span style=""> </span>Overall, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_restaurants">McDonald’s</a> are present in over <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries.html">100 countries</a>. Interestingly, Thomas Friedman has pointed out in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_McDonald%27s_franchises#Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention">Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention</a> that no two nations with McDonald’s have gone to war with each other. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s#Global_impact">Anthropologists</a> have pointed out that the culture imported by McDonald’s in <st1:place st="on">Asia</st1:place> has led to a number of improvements in food service ranging from faster service to cleaner bathrooms.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>I will do no more than mention (and link) the world’s favorite soft-drink, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-cola#Coca-Cola_and_local_competitors">Coca-Cola</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>So American television, movies, music, clothing, and food are everywhere, found in virtually every nation on Earth, popular in the majority of them, and dominating in many, especially in Western and Asian nations. So it seems that not only does <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> have a culture, but it has a culture that is being adopted by non-Americans at an amazing rate. Some say at a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism#Theory_and_debate">frightening</a> rate. While many decry the ‘Americanization’ of the globe, there is an element of this spread I haven’t mentioned yet. The spread of the English language. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>There are some who call the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism">spread</a> of English <a href="http://www.beyondutopia.net/articles/">language hegemony</a> and liken it to the loss of <a href="http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/eulang.html">identity</a> of people who adopt it, regardless of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism#Appropriation_theory">their</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism#Criticism_and_counter-attack">reasons</a>. The French are well-known (well, to me and other wonks like me, at least) for trying to strictly <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France">limit</a> the use of English in an attempt to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061031/ennew_afp/francemediaindustry_061031183332">stop</a> the spread of the language. Despite their sometimes-<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4840160.stm">extreme</a> opposition to <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Eharoldfs/540/handouts/french/dirigism/DIRIGISM.html">English</a>, the language <a href="http://www.geocities.com/dspichtinger/Uni/d-global.htm">continues</a> to <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321256/posts">spread</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>So far from having no culture, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> has a rich, vibrant, varied culture. The world flocks to our movies and televisions, listens to and sings our music, wears our fashions, and speaks our language, all because they find it rich, welcoming, and valuable. So the next time you hear someone, especially an American, say ‘there is no such thing as American culture’, ask them these simple questions,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>“Which is your favorite, Coke or Pepsi? Hot dogs or hamburgers?” Rock or rap? Star Wars or Star Trek?”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>I’m sure you can think of your own.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.com1