Sound only
That's the King Family in a Library of Congress collection "Voices from the Dustbowl."
Friday, July 31, 2009
Just Stopping By
The Equuschick is back this way for the afternoon, having had some errands to run.
She has been very busy and very well occupied of late, she takes Zeus for long walks every day and then she returns to take a cool bath in the Ginormous Jacuzzi Bath that is Complete with Two Toy Boats and A Rubber Ducky.
(Oils? Bath Salts? Beads? Bleh. The Equuschick doesn't need those to relax, just give her a rubber duck.)
She has two questions for the Blog Populace:
*What is your recommendation on best baby sling brands, and why?
*What's a good source for good quality pre-folded cloth diapers? (And please don't send The Equuschick a pattern telling her how to make them herself, because she can't. The investment of time will not be worth the mental anxiety. She will cry and commit suicide with her sewing needle. If you can have fun making your own, that's lovely for you. The Equuschick doesn't sew. Not a thing.)
(Some of you are going to leave patterns anyway, of course. You're going to assure The Equuschick that "these patterns are fabulously easy, sure I could do it, you don't know what fun you're missing!" ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? The Equuschick does not make things. She only makes food.)
She has been very busy and very well occupied of late, she takes Zeus for long walks every day and then she returns to take a cool bath in the Ginormous Jacuzzi Bath that is Complete with Two Toy Boats and A Rubber Ducky.
(Oils? Bath Salts? Beads? Bleh. The Equuschick doesn't need those to relax, just give her a rubber duck.)
She has two questions for the Blog Populace:
*What is your recommendation on best baby sling brands, and why?
*What's a good source for good quality pre-folded cloth diapers? (And please don't send The Equuschick a pattern telling her how to make them herself, because she can't. The investment of time will not be worth the mental anxiety. She will cry and commit suicide with her sewing needle. If you can have fun making your own, that's lovely for you. The Equuschick doesn't sew. Not a thing.)
(Some of you are going to leave patterns anyway, of course. You're going to assure The Equuschick that "these patterns are fabulously easy, sure I could do it, you don't know what fun you're missing!" ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? The Equuschick does not make things. She only makes food.)
The Philadelphia Voter-Intimidation Case
Remember the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case in Philly?
The WaTimes reports:
We blogged about it here last November with video. Obama's political appointtees to the Justice Department over-rode the career lawyers who were pursuing the case, and hence the voter intimidation charges have now been dropped.
Obama's political appointees did not consider these actions worthy of prosecution:
Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist from way back, somebody who worked to obtain civil rights for black voters in Mississippi and who worked with Robert Kennedy and who was there in his capacity as credentialed poll watcher, and he was horrified by the behavior of these three men:
The three men refused to show up for court over the space of five months and repeated efforts by the career lawyers for the Justice Department to pursue the case. It appears they knew they have friends in high places who would protect them from the deliberately shortened arm of the law.
Mr. Jackson, elected member of the 14th Ward Democratic Committee, had a MySpace account up until last night. Below are some of the things on his MySpace page. This is the fellow Obama's Justice department is protecting.
Post-racial American, indeed.
It all began when Mr. Jackson stood outside a Philadelphia polling area with Malik Zulu Shabazz and another New Black Panther member during the 2008 presidential election. They later faced charges for intimidating voters on November 4th, 2008. Appointed to be a poll watcher in 2008 for the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign, Mr. Jackson is also an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee.
The WaTimes reports:
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
We blogged about it here last November with video. Obama's political appointtees to the Justice Department over-rode the career lawyers who were pursuing the case, and hence the voter intimidation charges have now been dropped.
Obama's political appointees did not consider these actions worthy of prosecution:
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."
Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist from way back, somebody who worked to obtain civil rights for black voters in Mississippi and who worked with Robert Kennedy and who was there in his capacity as credentialed poll watcher, and he was horrified by the behavior of these three men:
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."
Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
The three men refused to show up for court over the space of five months and repeated efforts by the career lawyers for the Justice Department to pursue the case. It appears they knew they have friends in high places who would protect them from the deliberately shortened arm of the law.
Mr. Jackson, elected member of the 14th Ward Democratic Committee, had a MySpace account up until last night. Below are some of the things on his MySpace page. This is the fellow Obama's Justice department is protecting.
"BLACK POWER,BLACK LOVE,BLACK UNITY,BLACK MINDS,KILLIN CRAKKKAS"
"F*** Whitey's Christmas"
...
A photo of a man holding a sign saying, "DEPORT WHITE PEOPLE"
...
A photoshopped movie poster of the "Bourne Supremacy" is re-worded to say "The Bourne White Supremacy" A swastika is added to Matt Damon's cheek, and the scope of his firearm is photoshopped to look as if he is about to shoot a black man. The "n" word is used to describe who "Matt Damon hates" in this movie poster. The phrase, "They should have just stayed in Africa" is photoshopped at the top of the image.
Post-racial American, indeed.
Growing
Smartweed- a noxious, invasive, hard to get rid of plant that I like.
The blooms are small- the spike smaller than my thumb, individual blossoms like pinheads. Ours are deep pink, and look like they'd make a lovely Barbie bridal bouquet.
It's in the buckwheat family.
It apparently thrives on the herbicide Round up.=)
The blooms are small- the spike smaller than my thumb, individual blossoms like pinheads. Ours are deep pink, and look like they'd make a lovely Barbie bridal bouquet.
It's in the buckwheat family.
It apparently thrives on the herbicide Round up.=)
Useful and/or Beautiful
If you like beadboard, but don't have room for the slight extra bulk it provides, you might really love this wallpaper. It looks great to me.
Take a framed but hideous picture and blackboard paint and turn it into a useful and lovely blackboard for your home. They make magnetic paint, too, so you could do a magnet board instead. See other ideas for frames at my weekly frugal hacks post.
Nifty, and affordable, diaper cake for a shower. Made with disposables, decorated with rubber ducks (you could do something else).
Take a framed but hideous picture and blackboard paint and turn it into a useful and lovely blackboard for your home. They make magnetic paint, too, so you could do a magnet board instead. See other ideas for frames at my weekly frugal hacks post.
Nifty, and affordable, diaper cake for a shower. Made with disposables, decorated with rubber ducks (you could do something else).
And Still More Gates and Crowley
So Crowley and Gates had their beer with Obama. Biden came. Not sure anything much changed.
Sgt. Lashley, a black police officer who was there when Gates was arrested and who has spoken out in support of Crowley, sent a letter to the President by his friend Crowley. A CNN reporter, Don Lemon reads it- and being the trivially minded nitpicky sort that I am, Don Lemon really irked me. He refers to Lashley as the bald guy. Two other points that stood out to me were when Lemon erroneously and oddly corrected Lashley's grammar, saying he'd left out a word when he had not. Lemon, apparently, just didn't process a parenthetic expression between commas. It was also sadly ironic that Lashley makes about forever being known as 'the black sergeant,' while CNN's information box in the corner says, "Black Sergeant's Message for Pres."
Lashley, in the letter, urges Gates to consider what part he, Gates, played in his own arrest and to ask himself what responsibility he has to restore the reputations of two good officers. Sgt. Lashley has been called an Uncle Tom. The woman who made the 911 call has been called a racist as well, merely for reporting, as mildly as possible, that two men seemed to have forced open a door to the house.
I continue to believe that race was only a factor in Gates' mind (and mouth), that Crowley, who I have no doubt is a good man and a good cop, is also like most cops- he believes contempt of cop is a crime. It may be a nasty rudeness, but I stoutly believe it is also a civil liberty, and this is a civil liberties issue, not, except as Gates and the President have made it so, a racial issue.
Consider Page two of the arrest report, where by Crowley's own accounting, Gates demanded that Crowley show him identification. At no time does Crowley provide this. He says he told Gates his last name, but Gates ignored him. I am willing to believe Gates was too annoyed and bumptious to pay attention to the man's name, but it is still troublesome that Crowley did not offer identification as asked and as required by law. Crowley's own account indicates he never gave his first name or his badge number, and he did not respond to the request for identification by giving Gates the identification card that would have answered Gates' lawful (however rudely put) request. That identification card is one that police officers in Massachusetts are required to carry and, by law, "shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification."
Others have told me that this was unnecessary because Crowley had already identified himself when he gave his rank and last name, but that was not what Gates was asking for and we know this- and so did Crowley:
Crowley knew Gates was not asking for verbal identification, because he says when he asked Gates for ID, Gates initially refused, demanding that Crowley first *show* him identification. Crowley never showed his identification as asked, and he never claims that he does.
What if Gates, or somebody else, was to call into complain about a "Sgt, um, I think he said Crawley or Crowley, or Corley- something like that?" How far would that go? What if he actually got the name right, but then was told "Well, we have three officers called Sgt Crowley. What was the first name? Do you have a badge number?" There's a reason the officers are required to have written identification and give it when asked. Crowley was asked to show his identification and he didn't- if we believe Sgt. Crowley's own report.
Furthermore, I find it very intriguing that Crowley himself says that when Gates asked him for his name a third time instead of giving it (and identification, as he has already admitted Gates asked for), he replied to Gates' lawful request by telling him, "I already told you twice" (even though he had not, in fact, EVER provided identification as requested and required by law), and then told him that if he had any other questions he would 'speak with him outside.'
So, he knows Gates wants to see his identification, which Crowley has not provided. He knows Gates still does not know even his last name (even if this is Gates' own fault), and he tells Gates he'll speak with him outside. Does he then speak to Gates? No, knowing perfectly well that Gates still wants that information, by Crowley's own account he simply turns around and walks off down the sidewalk.
In fact, he makes it very plain that he is inviting Gates to come outside, because he makes that offer at least twice. He has told Gates he will speak to him outside if he wants further information and he then turns his back on Gates and walks off. He then says that as he was walking off, Gates AGAIN demands to know his name, and Crowley AGAIN says, "I will speak with you outside."
Then, very oddly, Crowley walks outside, but instead of waiting to speak with Gates as he has just told him he would, he walks right on down the steps of the porch and down the sidewalk. NOT giving Gates the information he is legally required to give. Not waiting to speak with the 68 year old hot tempered man with a cane whom he has told "I'll speak with you outside."
Naturally, Gates, already nearly apoplectic with rage over the whole thing (and largely through his own fault) is further incensed by this and from the porch he yells after the departing Crowley. Although I think his own behavior was very bad prior to this, at this instance I understand Gates' outrage- Crowley told him he would FINALLY answer his question if he would just come outside, and instead he turns his back and strides off, clearly with no intention of showing his ID as Gates has demanded and as Crowley led him to believe he would.
And, again, for this version we need rely only on Crowley's account, which is as favorable as he can make it towards himself (understandably). And according to Crowley, Gates does not even leave the porch. He is not following Crowley out into the street or even into his own yard. He is on his own porch in response to an invitation from Crowley to come outside where the rapidly departing Crowley had promised to speak to him.
Crowley has to turn around and come back up the steps onto the porch to arrest Gates, who has still not been given the information Crowley was legally obligated to provide.
Reading this, I am inclined to think that when Obama characterized this officer of behaving stupidly, he was even more wrong than we realized.
This officer was clever, very clever. Even though I think this arrest is a civil liberties issue and Gates shouldn't have been arrested, on another level I am rather tickled by Crowley. I wonder if he plays chess?
An angry, belligerent Gates was all too easy to manipulate. Morally and ethically, one can argue that he got what he had coming to him. He 'started it' when he was uncooperative with Crowley at the moment Crowley came to the door . He made a bad faith assumption about the officer based on his (Gates') own bigoted baggage, and things went downhill from there. If there is really a 'teachable moment' there, it's not the one Gates and Obama think it is.
But legally, I don't see how Gates' behavior fits the law he is accused of breaking, and I don't see how Crowley can justify refusing to give Gates his identification card.
As irritating, obnoxious, and even unjustified as it is in a given situation, contempt of cop is not a crime. I recognize that Gates' initial response to the officer was stupid, bigoted, and even ill-mannered. I know perfectly well that anybody who loudly mouths off to a cop the way Gates did can expect to get arrested for it- regardless of his color. I don’t understand why conservatives think getting arrested for being mouthy to a cop is a reasonable state of affairs.
But I do have a more than grudging respect for how well Crowley helped Gates hoist himself by his own petard.
Sgt. Lashley, a black police officer who was there when Gates was arrested and who has spoken out in support of Crowley, sent a letter to the President by his friend Crowley. A CNN reporter, Don Lemon reads it- and being the trivially minded nitpicky sort that I am, Don Lemon really irked me. He refers to Lashley as the bald guy. Two other points that stood out to me were when Lemon erroneously and oddly corrected Lashley's grammar, saying he'd left out a word when he had not. Lemon, apparently, just didn't process a parenthetic expression between commas. It was also sadly ironic that Lashley makes about forever being known as 'the black sergeant,' while CNN's information box in the corner says, "Black Sergeant's Message for Pres."
Lashley, in the letter, urges Gates to consider what part he, Gates, played in his own arrest and to ask himself what responsibility he has to restore the reputations of two good officers. Sgt. Lashley has been called an Uncle Tom. The woman who made the 911 call has been called a racist as well, merely for reporting, as mildly as possible, that two men seemed to have forced open a door to the house.
I continue to believe that race was only a factor in Gates' mind (and mouth), that Crowley, who I have no doubt is a good man and a good cop, is also like most cops- he believes contempt of cop is a crime. It may be a nasty rudeness, but I stoutly believe it is also a civil liberty, and this is a civil liberties issue, not, except as Gates and the President have made it so, a racial issue.
Consider Page two of the arrest report, where by Crowley's own accounting, Gates demanded that Crowley show him identification. At no time does Crowley provide this. He says he told Gates his last name, but Gates ignored him. I am willing to believe Gates was too annoyed and bumptious to pay attention to the man's name, but it is still troublesome that Crowley did not offer identification as asked and as required by law. Crowley's own account indicates he never gave his first name or his badge number, and he did not respond to the request for identification by giving Gates the identification card that would have answered Gates' lawful (however rudely put) request. That identification card is one that police officers in Massachusetts are required to carry and, by law, "shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification."
Others have told me that this was unnecessary because Crowley had already identified himself when he gave his rank and last name, but that was not what Gates was asking for and we know this- and so did Crowley:
Crowley knew Gates was not asking for verbal identification, because he says when he asked Gates for ID, Gates initially refused, demanding that Crowley first *show* him identification. Crowley never showed his identification as asked, and he never claims that he does.
What if Gates, or somebody else, was to call into complain about a "Sgt, um, I think he said Crawley or Crowley, or Corley- something like that?" How far would that go? What if he actually got the name right, but then was told "Well, we have three officers called Sgt Crowley. What was the first name? Do you have a badge number?" There's a reason the officers are required to have written identification and give it when asked. Crowley was asked to show his identification and he didn't- if we believe Sgt. Crowley's own report.
Furthermore, I find it very intriguing that Crowley himself says that when Gates asked him for his name a third time instead of giving it (and identification, as he has already admitted Gates asked for), he replied to Gates' lawful request by telling him, "I already told you twice" (even though he had not, in fact, EVER provided identification as requested and required by law), and then told him that if he had any other questions he would 'speak with him outside.'
So, he knows Gates wants to see his identification, which Crowley has not provided. He knows Gates still does not know even his last name (even if this is Gates' own fault), and he tells Gates he'll speak with him outside. Does he then speak to Gates? No, knowing perfectly well that Gates still wants that information, by Crowley's own account he simply turns around and walks off down the sidewalk.
In fact, he makes it very plain that he is inviting Gates to come outside, because he makes that offer at least twice. He has told Gates he will speak to him outside if he wants further information and he then turns his back on Gates and walks off. He then says that as he was walking off, Gates AGAIN demands to know his name, and Crowley AGAIN says, "I will speak with you outside."
Then, very oddly, Crowley walks outside, but instead of waiting to speak with Gates as he has just told him he would, he walks right on down the steps of the porch and down the sidewalk. NOT giving Gates the information he is legally required to give. Not waiting to speak with the 68 year old hot tempered man with a cane whom he has told "I'll speak with you outside."
Naturally, Gates, already nearly apoplectic with rage over the whole thing (and largely through his own fault) is further incensed by this and from the porch he yells after the departing Crowley. Although I think his own behavior was very bad prior to this, at this instance I understand Gates' outrage- Crowley told him he would FINALLY answer his question if he would just come outside, and instead he turns his back and strides off, clearly with no intention of showing his ID as Gates has demanded and as Crowley led him to believe he would.
And, again, for this version we need rely only on Crowley's account, which is as favorable as he can make it towards himself (understandably). And according to Crowley, Gates does not even leave the porch. He is not following Crowley out into the street or even into his own yard. He is on his own porch in response to an invitation from Crowley to come outside where the rapidly departing Crowley had promised to speak to him.
Crowley has to turn around and come back up the steps onto the porch to arrest Gates, who has still not been given the information Crowley was legally obligated to provide.
Reading this, I am inclined to think that when Obama characterized this officer of behaving stupidly, he was even more wrong than we realized.
This officer was clever, very clever. Even though I think this arrest is a civil liberties issue and Gates shouldn't have been arrested, on another level I am rather tickled by Crowley. I wonder if he plays chess?
An angry, belligerent Gates was all too easy to manipulate. Morally and ethically, one can argue that he got what he had coming to him. He 'started it' when he was uncooperative with Crowley at the moment Crowley came to the door . He made a bad faith assumption about the officer based on his (Gates') own bigoted baggage, and things went downhill from there. If there is really a 'teachable moment' there, it's not the one Gates and Obama think it is.
But legally, I don't see how Gates' behavior fits the law he is accused of breaking, and I don't see how Crowley can justify refusing to give Gates his identification card.
THIS is the law Crowley arrested Gates for breaking:
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 53. Penalty for certain offenses
Section 53. Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, common railers and brawlers, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy persons of the opposite sex, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, idle and disorderly persons, disturbers of the peace, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure may be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Furthermore:
The statute authorizing prosecutions for disorderly conduct, G.L. c. 272, § 53, has been saved from constitutional infirmity by incorporating the definition of “disorderly” contained in § 250.2(1)(a) and (c) of the Model Penal Code. The resulting definition of “disorderly” includes only those individuals who, “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof … (a) engage in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or … (c) create a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.’ “Public” is defined as affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
As irritating, obnoxious, and even unjustified as it is in a given situation, contempt of cop is not a crime. I recognize that Gates' initial response to the officer was stupid, bigoted, and even ill-mannered. I know perfectly well that anybody who loudly mouths off to a cop the way Gates did can expect to get arrested for it- regardless of his color. I don’t understand why conservatives think getting arrested for being mouthy to a cop is a reasonable state of affairs.
I agree the police have a moral right to expect some appreciation from a citizen in the situation Gates was in.
I do not agree they have a legal right to expect deferential treatment or even gratitude, to the point of arresting a man for no greater crime than yelling at them.
Verbally mouthing off to a police officer on your own property, particularly when the police have established that the reason for their being there is a misunderstanding will get just about anybody arrested- but it shouldn’t, and that it does should trouble principled conservatives.
Civil liberties, as I have said before, are not just for people we like, agree with, or respect.
But I do have a more than grudging respect for how well Crowley helped Gates hoist himself by his own petard.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
But what do we mean by 'success?'
"Schools do not fail. They succeed. Children always learn in school. Always and every day. When their rare and tiny compositions are "rated holistically" without regard for separate "aspects" like spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or even organization, they learn. They learn that mistakes bring no consequences. They learn that their teachers were only pretending in all those lessons on spelling and punctuation. They learn that there are no rewards for good work, and that they who run the race all win. They learn that what they win is a rubber-stamped smiling face, exactly as valuable as what they might lose, which is nothing, nothing at all. They learn that the demands of life are easily satisfied with little labor, if any, and that a show of effort is what really counts. They learn to pay attention to themselves, their wishes and fears, their likes and dislikes, their idle whims and temperamental tendencies, all of which, idolized as "values" and personological variables, are far more important than "mere achievement" in subject matter. The "whole child" comes first, and no one learns that lesson better than the children. Just as you can predict the future by going to school, you can decipher the past by looking-around. All those thoughtless, unskilled, unproductive, self-indulgent, and eminently dupable Americans - where have they been and what did they learn there?"
Richard Mitchell, THE GRAVES OF ACADEME
Back to School Deals
Here's a great list of stores and their back to school sales with the best deals highlighted for you. Pens, papers, erasers, notebooks, composition books, glue sticks, crayons- it all makes me giddy.
It is my considered opinion that many a homeschooling mom was attracted to homeschooling in the first place because it seemed like a good way to mask her addition to office supplies.
It is my considered opinion that many a homeschooling mom was attracted to homeschooling in the first place because it seemed like a good way to mask her addition to office supplies.
That Prayer Request...
mentioned here. Our young friend is still in ICU, and they still don't have any answers. They have managed to drain the fluid from around her heart and from her lungs. These procedures were painful, and she is still in a lot of discomfort but doing better.
Naturally, since her mama is with her in ICU, one brother cut up his knee and required stitches, and a younger brother got some sort of stomach virus (this is more than ordinarily worrying because he has epilepsy and stomach bugs sometimes trigger his seizures). B
Naturally, since her mama is with her in ICU, one brother cut up his knee and required stitches, and a younger brother got some sort of stomach virus (this is more than ordinarily worrying because he has epilepsy and stomach bugs sometimes trigger his seizures). B
New Mental Disorders
The DSM-V is the fifth (hence the V) edition of the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Published by the American Psychiatric Association, it is periodically revised and updated as the APA 'discovers' new mental illnesses and, once in a while, decides old ones are out of fashion and no longer mental illnesses at all. In the USA, this is the reference manual for diagnosing mental disorders, which might explain why Americans are supposedly the most mentally ill people in the world (roughly a quarter of us, I believe, and rising).
Slate Magazine has an article on the working of this edition:
The DSM-V isn't out yet- it's in progress. And we are not to know what the basis is for determining what is and isn't a mental illness in this edition- there's a non-disclosure agreement that applies both during the process and forever after, and two former editors are calling foul on the secrecy behind it:
But wait! There's more, and it makes my back hairs stand straight up:
Now, under their editorship, we saw 150 new diagnoses in 24 years, and if they are concerned about the speed, number, and basis for an unknown number of new mental illnesses (shopping, bitterness), we should be more than alarmed.
Previously:
"In Medical Nemesis (1976) Ivan Illich argues that the medical industry creates a market (and, thus, a means of profit) for itself by transforming life events into medical problems."( cited here)
Longterm readers might remember 'shadow syndrome,' a mild form of a more severe mental disorder. People who start projects but do not finish them, people who keep their desks messy and have trouble finding things sometimes, people who dive into projects but seldom complete them probably are mentally ill.
Oddly, the researchers mentioned in this article caution against using your religious community and leadership to help you overcome your anxieties and concerns, but the end of the article says,
There's a simple explanation for why mental illness in this society is supposedly on the increase. It need not be deliberate, but it is due to a natural tendency to do what benefits us most without even consciously making that choice. It is the same explanation for why Teacher's Unions (though not so much teachers) are agitating for schools which offer cradle to graduation care. It is why social workers have tended to keep kids in foster care longer than they need to be there (and sometimes when they have never needed to be there at all). It's about job creation.
If you haven't read Brave New World yet, you really should.
And with the incentive of Obama-Care, there's are a trillion or so of self-interested reasons for the APA to add new diseases to treat.
See here for more
Slate Magazine has an article on the working of this edition:
To its members and to the public, the APA boasts that the manual is rigorous and evidence-based, drawing meticulously on data and field trials. But the very fact that the APA has produced a task force to decide whether bitterness, apathy, extreme shopping, and overuse of the Internet belong in the manual indicates, as Allen Frances, who chaired the DSM-IV task force, told Psychiatric News last month, that DSM-V is "headed in a very wrong direction." "I don't think they realize the problems they are about to create," he declared, "nor are they flexible enough to change course."
The DSM-V isn't out yet- it's in progress. And we are not to know what the basis is for determining what is and isn't a mental illness in this edition- there's a non-disclosure agreement that applies both during the process and forever after, and two former editors are calling foul on the secrecy behind it:
the agreement also remains binding even after DSM-V is published; to avoid breaking it, participants must keep their drafts, memos, and working papers to themselves. Apparently we're never to know exactly how or why bitterness, anger, and Internet addiction become mental disorders. Indeed, the contract appears to have been designed to make that omission a foregone conclusion—otherwise, why did the APA enforce it so rigidly at the start? When Spitzer requested the minutes of earlier discussions, he was told that if the APA made them available to him, it would need to share them with others.
But wait! There's more, and it makes my back hairs stand straight up:
Spitzer and Frances also strongly disagree with a proposal to include "subthreshold" and "premorbid" diagnoses in the new manual. Both terms give cover to the so-called "kindling" theory of mental illness in children and infants—some psychiatrists believe that it's possible to stamp out ailments before they burgeon into full-blown disorders. In practice, as the St. Petersburg Times reported in March, psychiatrists in Florida alone gave antipsychotic drugs off-label (without formal FDA approval) in 2007 to 23 infants who were less than 1 year old at the time. They extended the practice to 39 toddlers aged 1; 103 aged 2; 315 aged 3; 886 aged 4; and 1,801 aged 5. One shudders to think what is going on in other states.
The kindling theory of infant mental disorders reminds us—as Darrel Regier (then the APA's deputy medical director) told the FDA's Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee in October 2005—that the APA already considers 48 million Americans mentally ill. "Subthreshold" and "premorbid" diagnoses, warn Spitzer and Frances, "could add tens of millions of newly diagnosed 'patients' "—their quotation marks—to that roster, "the majority of whom would likely be false positives subjected to the needless side effects and expense of treatment." Conceivably, we might by 2012 reach a point where the APA is defining more than half the country as mentally ill.
Now, under their editorship, we saw 150 new diagnoses in 24 years, and if they are concerned about the speed, number, and basis for an unknown number of new mental illnesses (shopping, bitterness), we should be more than alarmed.
Previously:
"In Medical Nemesis (1976) Ivan Illich argues that the medical industry creates a market (and, thus, a means of profit) for itself by transforming life events into medical problems."( cited here)
Longterm readers might remember 'shadow syndrome,' a mild form of a more severe mental disorder. People who start projects but do not finish them, people who keep their desks messy and have trouble finding things sometimes, people who dive into projects but seldom complete them probably are mentally ill.
Oddly, the researchers mentioned in this article caution against using your religious community and leadership to help you overcome your anxieties and concerns, but the end of the article says,
"It is not clear why Americans have such high rates of mental illness, but cultural factors clearly play a role. Immigrants quickly increase their risk of mental health problems, especially if they do not live in native ethnic communities. Minorities also tend to have lower levels of mental health problems despite lower economic status, suggesting that the social support they provide each other is protective."
There's a simple explanation for why mental illness in this society is supposedly on the increase. It need not be deliberate, but it is due to a natural tendency to do what benefits us most without even consciously making that choice. It is the same explanation for why Teacher's Unions (though not so much teachers) are agitating for schools which offer cradle to graduation care. It is why social workers have tended to keep kids in foster care longer than they need to be there (and sometimes when they have never needed to be there at all). It's about job creation.
"Indeed, the diagnoses and prescriptions offered by psychologists largely amount to little more that job creation, she argues. Therapists need patients, so they create disorders with which to label prospective customers. Eventually, everybody can be described as abnormal and in need of treatment."
Psychotherapy has political consequences. Individuals freed from moral responsibility are no longer citizens, but patients or victims who need someone else to manage their lives. As Ms. Dineen writes: "The psychology industry considers and treats people as children who, regardless of age, experience or status, must be protected, guided, sheltered and disciplined." But by smothering individual responsibility for the sake of self-esteem, psychotherapy creates a depoliticized society of contented creatures who need only to be organized and pacified.
And that is a form of tyranny. It may produce a lifestyle that looks and feels nicer than life under the governments of North Korea or mainland China. But it is no less tyrannical. Ms. Dineen's book exposes the threat to freedom posed by all those trauma counsellors rushing to rescue modern man's poor, shivering psyche.
If you haven't read Brave New World yet, you really should.
And with the incentive of Obama-Care, there's are a trillion or so of self-interested reasons for the APA to add new diseases to treat.
See here for more
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tonsils and your Doctor
Does this statement display any wisdom, knowledge, or awareness of basic facts?
Is it even reflective of reality? How many tonsillectomies are actually performed each year, and is that rate rising or falling?
Are doctors perfect, never jerks, never motivated by self-interest? Of course not, But neither are the bureaucrats he wants to inject into the system.
“You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”
Is it even reflective of reality? How many tonsillectomies are actually performed each year, and is that rate rising or falling?
If that’s what he really thinks is wrong with U.S. health care—and with the medical profession—then ObamaCare is going to be even worse than we thought. The point Mr. Obama oversimplified is that the way the U.S. pays for medical services can encourage some physicians to prescribe unnecessary tests or treatments, especially in Medicare. But his implication is that doctors aren’t acting in the best interests of their patients in order, basically, to rob them.
Are doctors perfect, never jerks, never motivated by self-interest? Of course not, But neither are the bureaucrats he wants to inject into the system.
Science Knowledge Quiz
You can take it, too. I do not find this gratifying, I find it pathetic and frightening. For one thing, it's not really much of a science knowledge quiz. It's more a quiz about what science related topics have been in the news- one needn't understand any science at all to pass it, just pay a modicum of attention to the news and have that sort of memory which allows you to recognize words and phrases you've heard before when presented again in multiple choice quizzes. This is how I did well in school.
Actually, I only got 11 right, but then I thought about one of them and realized that even though I was right, 'they' would expect a different answer, and it was arguably semantics.
And it turns out that 11 right is STILL better than ten ninety (that was an embarrassing error) percent of the population.
Corn Detasseling and minimum wage
Minimum wage just went up from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour. That's a raise of more than 10 percent.
IT's corn detasseling season in the midwest. Sunday a young friend of ours who detassles corn complained about the rise in minimum wage- she had worked her way up a bit and was considered a crew leader, getting a little extra over the rest of the crew. Now she has the extra responsbility, but not so much extra pay, since the rest of the detasselers without her responsibilities now make very nearly what she does. So she's writing a letter to the company asking for a raise (I hope she asks for it to be retroactive, dating to the day minimum wage took effect). I expect she'll get it, although, since the job is only for a weeks in the summer, the company might manage to put her off long enough that it won't matter until next summer.
I am sure she is not the only one whose pay status has actually been debased by the minimum wage increase, and who is now asking for a raise. Basically, the payroll costs just went up nearly 10 percent- and no business is going to eat that cost. Those costs will be added on to the prices of goods and services, and in no time at all, minimum wage will buy precisely what it used to, perhaps a bit less.
Corn Detasseling is also an illustration of the senselessness of the argument that minimum wage ought to be a 'living wage.' Corn detasseling isn't a job anybody could or should make a living at- it's seasonal, primarily a means of extra cash for teens and people in their twenties- and it's extremely temporary. Sometimes the season is only a little over a week long, sometimes almost a month.
Minimum wage hikes aren't just a reflection of the rising cost of living, they are one of the driving factors as well.
IT's corn detasseling season in the midwest. Sunday a young friend of ours who detassles corn complained about the rise in minimum wage- she had worked her way up a bit and was considered a crew leader, getting a little extra over the rest of the crew. Now she has the extra responsbility, but not so much extra pay, since the rest of the detasselers without her responsibilities now make very nearly what she does. So she's writing a letter to the company asking for a raise (I hope she asks for it to be retroactive, dating to the day minimum wage took effect). I expect she'll get it, although, since the job is only for a weeks in the summer, the company might manage to put her off long enough that it won't matter until next summer.
I am sure she is not the only one whose pay status has actually been debased by the minimum wage increase, and who is now asking for a raise. Basically, the payroll costs just went up nearly 10 percent- and no business is going to eat that cost. Those costs will be added on to the prices of goods and services, and in no time at all, minimum wage will buy precisely what it used to, perhaps a bit less.
Corn Detasseling is also an illustration of the senselessness of the argument that minimum wage ought to be a 'living wage.' Corn detasseling isn't a job anybody could or should make a living at- it's seasonal, primarily a means of extra cash for teens and people in their twenties- and it's extremely temporary. Sometimes the season is only a little over a week long, sometimes almost a month.
Minimum wage hikes aren't just a reflection of the rising cost of living, they are one of the driving factors as well.
Ukelele Zen
As an instrument, I kind of thought of the Ukulele as a sort of joke, at best a gimmick used mostly by young men in the 20s or 30s to pick up chicks, the sort of young men who shook hands saying, "Meezed to pleat you" and thought that was hilarious. Every time.
I'm willing to admit that I was an idiot:
I'm willing to admit that I was an idiot:
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Blynken's Heartache
As a reminder, Blynken is 5, Nod is 2.
Monday Nod was playing quietly and nicely on the stairs when Blynken came up and sadly asked him, "Can I put my head in your lap?"
"Dust a minute," said Nod. "I should ask if dat is otay."
He had been told he could only play on the stairs quietly, sitting down, maybe that's why he asked, I don't know. He asked and received permission. He returned and Blynken rested his head on his little brother's knees.
"Is 'oo sad, brudder?" Nod asked.
"Yes," said Blynken in a voice laden with pathos and drama. "I can never go into the kitchen again. I was in there with Pip and I said something bad about the food, and she said I couldn't stay in the kitchen if I did that, and I did it again anyway, and she kicked me out. And now I can never go back in there again. I didn't even finish my milk, and she doesn't even know it!"
What he said was that the food she was fixing was going to be yucky, and she told him he couldn't complain about the food she was cooking, and he said yes, he could too. So she said, essentially, "not in my kitchen," and he said, essentially, he could say what he wanted where he wanted and when he wanted, and she said not in the kitchen where she was working and not about the food she was making and definitely not right then or she'd banish him, and he said she didn't really mean it and then he said her cooking was yucky again just to show her.
And that's how he ended up all forlorn on the stairs, without even finishing his milk.*
________________________
*Turns out this was a bit of an exaggeration- he barely had a mouthful of milk left.
But he is not one to let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Monday Nod was playing quietly and nicely on the stairs when Blynken came up and sadly asked him, "Can I put my head in your lap?"
"Dust a minute," said Nod. "I should ask if dat is otay."
He had been told he could only play on the stairs quietly, sitting down, maybe that's why he asked, I don't know. He asked and received permission. He returned and Blynken rested his head on his little brother's knees.
"Is 'oo sad, brudder?" Nod asked.
"Yes," said Blynken in a voice laden with pathos and drama. "I can never go into the kitchen again. I was in there with Pip and I said something bad about the food, and she said I couldn't stay in the kitchen if I did that, and I did it again anyway, and she kicked me out. And now I can never go back in there again. I didn't even finish my milk, and she doesn't even know it!"
What he said was that the food she was fixing was going to be yucky, and she told him he couldn't complain about the food she was cooking, and he said yes, he could too. So she said, essentially, "not in my kitchen," and he said, essentially, he could say what he wanted where he wanted and when he wanted, and she said not in the kitchen where she was working and not about the food she was making and definitely not right then or she'd banish him, and he said she didn't really mean it and then he said her cooking was yucky again just to show her.
And that's how he ended up all forlorn on the stairs, without even finishing his milk.*
________________________
*Turns out this was a bit of an exaggeration- he barely had a mouthful of milk left.
But he is not one to let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Possibly the most poisonously self-centered, narcissitic phrase in the English language
"I deserve to be happy...."
The sentiment expressed by two people of my acquaintance who have recently tossed their marriages under a bus and picked up an another partner to ride with.
It doesn't even make sense- if each of us 'deserves' to be happy, how is that even possible given the abandoned spouse and the children who are devastated by the divorce?
Other, related, statements:
"My soulmate..." said about the new love, just as it was said about the old one.
"We've just grown apart..." said to justify a separation supposedly intended to be an interim step to reconciliation with the betrayed spouse (the cure for growing apart is to spend more time together, not more time apart, and certainly less time with Cyber-Boy, the new love of your life. Pleasure jaunts with Cyber-boy are not good faith efforts to reconcile, but a demonstration of patent dishonesty and the maturity level of a self centered 15 year old).
The sentiment expressed by two people of my acquaintance who have recently tossed their marriages under a bus and picked up an another partner to ride with.
It doesn't even make sense- if each of us 'deserves' to be happy, how is that even possible given the abandoned spouse and the children who are devastated by the divorce?
Other, related, statements:
"My soulmate..." said about the new love, just as it was said about the old one.
"We've just grown apart..." said to justify a separation supposedly intended to be an interim step to reconciliation with the betrayed spouse (the cure for growing apart is to spend more time together, not more time apart, and certainly less time with Cyber-Boy, the new love of your life. Pleasure jaunts with Cyber-boy are not good faith efforts to reconcile, but a demonstration of patent dishonesty and the maturity level of a self centered 15 year old).
What Obama USED to think about rushing bills throough without reading them
Listen to him in a radio interview here criticizing huge bills that get rushed through without allowing any time for debate- which is what he did with stimulus, what he's trying to do with Health Care, and his colleague Conyers says now that it doesn't do any good to read the bills, they can't understand them anyway. Well, then, YOU DO NOT PASS LAWS YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND.
More here-
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
More here-
"What good is reading the bills?"
That's the question Representative Conyers (D) asks- seriously. WHY IS THIS MAN HOLDING OFFICE? WHY IS HE MAKING LAWS THE REST OF US HAVE TO FOLLOW?
In a speech to the National PRess club, he seriously snipes derisively at his colleagues who say Congress has a responsibility to READ THEIR STINKIN' BILLS before passing them- before VOTING. Watch it- it is totally unbelievable to me that this is acceptable to any citizen at all, let alone, apparently, a majority of them:
In a speech to the National PRess club, he seriously snipes derisively at his colleagues who say Congress has a responsibility to READ THEIR STINKIN' BILLS before passing them- before VOTING. Watch it- it is totally unbelievable to me that this is acceptable to any citizen at all, let alone, apparently, a majority of them:
"I love these members who get up here and say, 'read the bills.' [pause to look importantly and meaningfully around the room] What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?
What the Little Boys Did
Blynken and Nod went home yesterday afternoon, as I am having my teeth worked on this morning and expect to find it a shattering experience sending me to my bed for a couple of days of pain killer befogged nausea.
Nod was excited about going back home, Blynken not. "But I know your mother misses you," I said. "Nooo," he said thoughtfully as he calculated on his fingers and then gave me a saucy grin, "MY mother only misses me once I've been gone two weeks," which, by a shocking coincidence is precisely how long he was pushing to stay. He felt like I could just buck up and get over it and let him stay, and he was sure my teeth wouldn't bother me that much.
This visit they had another bonfire, another singing, tomatoes from the container garden on our deck (Nod liked them, Blynken not), a romp in the dark with a lot of other wild little boys playing some sort of chase game, a butterfly which landed in our driveway and commenced to die, first letting the boys get a close-look at it, a tomato hornworm of immense and grotesque proportions, a portrait sketched by Strider, church, an afternoon playing at somebody's house after church- somebody with a cool sandbox and a large play-yard, and lots of blueberries. After the singing, Nod got to go on a six mile hike at midnight under a new moon with Pip and several friends- they looked at stars, stopped on the bridge and listened to the water, and passed Nod around like a favorite package, something he thoroughly enjoys and which is probably not very good for his character.
Blynken stayed here, objecting to long walks on principle and knowing he wouldn't be passed about quite as cheerfully as his much lighter and more compact brother, and romped in the dark outside with the other visiting little boys, then he came in and had Winnie the Pooh (the real thing, not DIsney) and Little Babaji read to him about 18 million times.
They helped cook, they helped bake, and Blynken explained to me how he longs for a downstairs apartment where he can run as fast and hard as he can, and maybe even jump a little.
Blynken went around the house with the Boy, together they washed all my light switches and doorknobs, and Blynken said it was wonderful fun. He also likes sweeping.
Blynken had a few fits of temper, something to which he is regrettably prone, although he throws them only for the Tea Chemist and the Progeny, not so much for me. Nod had a few pitiful crying jags and this was sad.
They stood on the deck watering my container garden and they giggled delightedly when the FYG showed them how to spray people in the yard below with the hose. Blynken rode on the HM's shoulders and got a bath he did not entirely want but was reconciled to by the Boy's offer of a toy submarine to play with.
I worked with teaching the FYG to deal with nap/quiet times in a more straightforward way- Rather brusquely, in a 'this is not a debate' tone of voice saying "You needn't sleep, but you will lie down quietly, do you want two books or two toy cars while you do that?" works so much better with this one than giving him too many options or sounding like you aren't sure he's going to mind you.
Precious little wedding sewing, schooling, or organizing was done- we mainly entertained the boys and tried to stem the tide of clutter that accumulates so rapidly.
And I am already looking forward to when they come back again.
Nod was excited about going back home, Blynken not. "But I know your mother misses you," I said. "Nooo," he said thoughtfully as he calculated on his fingers and then gave me a saucy grin, "MY mother only misses me once I've been gone two weeks," which, by a shocking coincidence is precisely how long he was pushing to stay. He felt like I could just buck up and get over it and let him stay, and he was sure my teeth wouldn't bother me that much.
This visit they had another bonfire, another singing, tomatoes from the container garden on our deck (Nod liked them, Blynken not), a romp in the dark with a lot of other wild little boys playing some sort of chase game, a butterfly which landed in our driveway and commenced to die, first letting the boys get a close-look at it, a tomato hornworm of immense and grotesque proportions, a portrait sketched by Strider, church, an afternoon playing at somebody's house after church- somebody with a cool sandbox and a large play-yard, and lots of blueberries. After the singing, Nod got to go on a six mile hike at midnight under a new moon with Pip and several friends- they looked at stars, stopped on the bridge and listened to the water, and passed Nod around like a favorite package, something he thoroughly enjoys and which is probably not very good for his character.
Blynken stayed here, objecting to long walks on principle and knowing he wouldn't be passed about quite as cheerfully as his much lighter and more compact brother, and romped in the dark outside with the other visiting little boys, then he came in and had Winnie the Pooh (the real thing, not DIsney) and Little Babaji read to him about 18 million times.
They helped cook, they helped bake, and Blynken explained to me how he longs for a downstairs apartment where he can run as fast and hard as he can, and maybe even jump a little.
Blynken went around the house with the Boy, together they washed all my light switches and doorknobs, and Blynken said it was wonderful fun. He also likes sweeping.
Blynken had a few fits of temper, something to which he is regrettably prone, although he throws them only for the Tea Chemist and the Progeny, not so much for me. Nod had a few pitiful crying jags and this was sad.
They stood on the deck watering my container garden and they giggled delightedly when the FYG showed them how to spray people in the yard below with the hose. Blynken rode on the HM's shoulders and got a bath he did not entirely want but was reconciled to by the Boy's offer of a toy submarine to play with.
I worked with teaching the FYG to deal with nap/quiet times in a more straightforward way- Rather brusquely, in a 'this is not a debate' tone of voice saying "You needn't sleep, but you will lie down quietly, do you want two books or two toy cars while you do that?" works so much better with this one than giving him too many options or sounding like you aren't sure he's going to mind you.
Precious little wedding sewing, schooling, or organizing was done- we mainly entertained the boys and tried to stem the tide of clutter that accumulates so rapidly.
And I am already looking forward to when they come back again.
More Gates and Crowley-
CNN interviewed police officers in Cambridge, officers who know Officer Crowley-
One black cop says Professor Gates has filled in a smoke screen, and she will not vote for President Obama or her governor again.
The last couple of seconds is very touching.
Thanks to HotAir
Listen to the 911 call and the dispatch call from Patterico
I agree with Patterico that it sounds like Officer Crowley remained calm throughout and Gates was increasingly loud and abrasive- he even took issue to be referred to 'the gentleman,' as in 'the gentleman says he lives here.' It sounds like he barked at the police officer, "I'm CALLED Mr. (or Professor? it's unclear) Gates!"
But I never thought this was a racially motivated incident, except on the Professor's part. The Professor has long been into stereotyping others- as evidenced by his application to Yale:
Incidentally, Lani Guinier, a Harvard colleague of Professor Gates', says Gates:
I agree with Aplomb, responding to Patterico in comment 3, in part:
The 911 tape and Crowley's account are interesting- Lisa Whalen made the call (for which the left has excoriated her as a racist)= but she says an elderly lady stopped her and pointed out two men breaking open a door, so she looked and made the call- she says she didn't know if a crime was being committed, or if there was just a problem with their key- she doesn't know their race, and said she saw suitcases on the porch.
The person taking the call sounds a little irked and impatient with her- he keeps cutting her off, and once demands something like, "What difference does that make?" Often he cuts her off to ask her a question she would have answered for him previously if he hadn't previously interrupted her.
Crowley said when arrived he talked with the caller outside, and she told him there were two black men and they had backpacks. But Whalen says that wasn't her. So was there somebody? Possibly there was, and he just didn't realize it wasn't the caller. Possibly the elderly lady, but whoever it was, she's unlikely to come forward and admit it at this point, because according to the left it was racist to notice the men shoving a front door open with their shoulders were black.
Something else the 911 call indicates, Gates was not telling the truth when he said he had some sort of illness (bronchial something or other, I think he said) and so he could not possibly have raised his voice.
The article linked above describes the situation thusly:
I agree that race was not a factor- for Crowley, it clearly was to Gates. I also agree that Gates was arrested because he was belligerent. The point of disagreement between myself and most of my friends is whether or not it is right, in a free society, to arrest a man on his own property for being belligerent to officers who no longer have a legitimate reason to be there. I don't feel sorry for Gates- the more he talks, the more obnoxious and rude he sounds, and my feelings are all on the side of Crowley- I would love to be able to arrest people who talked to me like that and showed that level of incivility. But my principles are on the side of free speech and a man's home is his castle.
As Balko at Reason says:
It's a good read- I especially found the links to those arrested for recording the activities of police in the line of duty very eye opening.
One black cop says Professor Gates has filled in a smoke screen, and she will not vote for President Obama or her governor again.
The last couple of seconds is very touching.
Thanks to HotAir
Listen to the 911 call and the dispatch call from Patterico
I agree with Patterico that it sounds like Officer Crowley remained calm throughout and Gates was increasingly loud and abrasive- he even took issue to be referred to 'the gentleman,' as in 'the gentleman says he lives here.' It sounds like he barked at the police officer, "I'm CALLED Mr. (or Professor? it's unclear) Gates!"
But I never thought this was a racially motivated incident, except on the Professor's part. The Professor has long been into stereotyping others- as evidenced by his application to Yale:
“As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself.”
Incidentally, Lani Guinier, a Harvard colleague of Professor Gates', says Gates:
has an eye for the media, for positioning himself and knowing how to present a story."He seems to have miscalculated this one, and by couching it as a racially motivated incident when he clearly was the one most focused on race, was a huge misstep.
I agree with Aplomb, responding to Patterico in comment 3, in part:
You can fault Gates for getting way too incensed and spouting off some ideological nonsense and yelling at the cop, but it is his home. Once the government intruded and was shown its intrusion was unwarranted, no matter how reasonable their response to the 911 call was, they need to respect property rights and take off. You still have the right to be loud and crazy and disrespectful to the government on your own homestead, as long as it is just verbal, or so I thought. It’s especially free speech because he was railing against perceived injustices of the government, and not inciting anyone to start fighting, burning or looting, or anything. He was just pissed of at government and got loud about it.
It’s the “he did it on his porch, not in his house” distinction that’s really confusing me, and I’m a lawyer who works for the State of Texas. It’s still his property, the whole circus outside was not his fault but the fault of the excessive police response, and all he was doing was yelling. If he were yelling the same things in a park, or on a street corner, is that really disorderly? It’s pretty much the definition of free speech — we get to rant and rave at the government, even raising our voices, and as long as the crowd is just standing around and watching there is no disorder.
I’m really kind of surprised how some on the Right are dealing with this. It’s pure free speech and property rights to me, but somehow some on the Right are focusing on the content of the speech (cops are inherently racist) and losing the fact that this guy established he was in his own home, never left his property, and still got arrested because the police didn’t like the tone or content of his rant.
The 911 tape and Crowley's account are interesting- Lisa Whalen made the call (for which the left has excoriated her as a racist)= but she says an elderly lady stopped her and pointed out two men breaking open a door, so she looked and made the call- she says she didn't know if a crime was being committed, or if there was just a problem with their key- she doesn't know their race, and said she saw suitcases on the porch.
The person taking the call sounds a little irked and impatient with her- he keeps cutting her off, and once demands something like, "What difference does that make?" Often he cuts her off to ask her a question she would have answered for him previously if he hadn't previously interrupted her.
Crowley said when arrived he talked with the caller outside, and she told him there were two black men and they had backpacks. But Whalen says that wasn't her. So was there somebody? Possibly there was, and he just didn't realize it wasn't the caller. Possibly the elderly lady, but whoever it was, she's unlikely to come forward and admit it at this point, because according to the left it was racist to notice the men shoving a front door open with their shoulders were black.
Something else the 911 call indicates, Gates was not telling the truth when he said he had some sort of illness (bronchial something or other, I think he said) and so he could not possibly have raised his voice.
The article linked above describes the situation thusly:
The professor's supporters called his arrest an outrageous act of racial profiling. Crowley's supporters say Gates was arrested because he was belligerent and that race was not a factor.
I agree that race was not a factor- for Crowley, it clearly was to Gates. I also agree that Gates was arrested because he was belligerent. The point of disagreement between myself and most of my friends is whether or not it is right, in a free society, to arrest a man on his own property for being belligerent to officers who no longer have a legitimate reason to be there. I don't feel sorry for Gates- the more he talks, the more obnoxious and rude he sounds, and my feelings are all on the side of Crowley- I would love to be able to arrest people who talked to me like that and showed that level of incivility. But my principles are on the side of free speech and a man's home is his castle.
As Balko at Reason says:
"Contempt of cop," as it's sometimes called, isn't a crime. Or at least it shouldn't be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The "disorderly conduct" charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest.He won't be, of course. And that's ultimately the scandal that will endure long after the political furor dies down. The power to forcibly detain a citizen is an extraordinary one. It's taken far too lightly, and is too often abused. And that abuse certainly occurs against black people, but not only against black people. American cops seem to have increasingly little tolerance for people who talk back, even merely to inquire about their rights.
It's a good read- I especially found the links to those arrested for recording the activities of police in the line of duty very eye opening.
Rainbows and Paranoia
Mild profanity
Paraphrase:
"I'm just wondering what the heck is in our water supply, what is it oozing out of the ground, what's making these metallic oxide salts that create a rainbow effect in a sprinkler." Coz, dude, we all know we weren't seeing this kind of thing 20 years ago.
No. 20 years ago we got rainbow effects without using water at all. They were on the inside of our eyelids, man. And sometimes? There were little green men, too. But then my dealer got busted.
Okay, I'm making some of that up. But you'd be surprised.
Does she vote?
She has a blog. On Greenpeace. Comments seem pretty harsh.
I like her. She kind of reminds me of my old friend Gene.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Now multiply that 23.7 times
A trillion seconds is 32,000 YEARS. A trillion dollars- if you spent a million dollars a day for two thousand years you'd be about two thirds of the way there, according to a math professor CNN interviewed. A trillion seconds ago, Neanderthals held sway in Europe.
What could you do with a trillion dollars? You could go on an imaginary shopping spree and see.
Another way of looking at it (via HyScience)-
What could you do with a trillion dollars? You could go on an imaginary shopping spree and see.
Another way of looking at it (via HyScience)-
Mind boggling lack of "unprecedented transparency" by the Obama administration:
The Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barofsky, made headlines this week when he estimated that the Obama administration had committed itself to spending as much as $24,000,000,000,000 to fix the American economy. The Treasury fired back at its own SIGTARP, saying that Barofsky inflated the numbers and that they had no intention of spending almost twice America's annual GDP. In an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, Barofsky explains that the White House currently has dozens of programs dispensing cash, and that the caps on all of those add up to the $24-trillion mark...
I Want a Vegetable Tree
I understand it's free, all I have to do is, like, pay for it. Except why should I have to pay for the land and stuff, because, you know? Fer sure.
It's probably rude to laugh, isn't it?
It is sadly funny- until you think about it and wonder where she learned, to, um, you know, like, think? like that.
Bonnet Tip Tom Elia at The New Editor
It's probably rude to laugh, isn't it?
It is sadly funny- until you think about it and wonder where she learned, to, um, you know, like, think? like that.
Bonnet Tip Tom Elia at The New Editor
Susan Estrich on Health Care
When even Susan Estrich is concerned about the President's admission that he isn't familiar with the details of the health care bill he nevertheless insists must be passed immediately, the President has a problem:
The president is "not familiar" with the bill. No one can explain how it will work yet, as Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told a contentious town meeting. There are various plans, and negotiations are still in the early stages.
But whatever it is, we should be for it.
Am I missing something?
FLDS, July 27th
The last FLDS child to remain in CPS custody has been released to a relative of the family. Over four hundred and thirty children taken (and adults), and not one of them kept in the system.
Attorney John Floyd has an excellent summary:
Attorney John Floyd has an excellent summary:
the Texas Rangers were notified about the anonymous telephone calls in March 2008 to the New Bridge family crisis center. That law enforcement agency initiated an investigation into the matter as a case of an adult sexually abusing a child. The investigation was led by Ranger Brooks Long. The pleadings stated the Ranger was specifically informed by Jessica Carroll that “Barlow” was Dale Evans Barlow who had been convicted in Arizona’s Mohave County in 2007 for an FLDS sex offense and placed on probation. Carroll stated she learned this information from a “Google search” of the name Barlow. Armed with this “Google search” information, Long secured all the necessary court records from Arizona to verify Carroll’s information. The court documents revealed that Barlow had strict conditions on his probation which restricted him from leaving Arizona without permission from his probation officer. The Ranger then called Mohave County Sheriff Allen Pashano who informed Long that Barlow did not have permission to leave the state. Shortly after this call the Mohave Sheriff’s office notified Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran that it had determined Barlow had never left Mohave County and, in fact, had never been to the Texas FLDS compound. Sheriff Doran shared this information with Long. Finally, Long instructed Schleicher County George Arispe to contact the local medical center to verify the information the pregnant 16-year-old caller had given Carroll about seeking and receiving medical treatment for physical abuse allegedly inflicted by “Dale Barlow.” The medical center informed Deputy Arispe that it had no information on any such pregnant 16-year-old and had not provided any treatment for such a person.Thanks to Toes for the link- Toes got it from Hugh- all of us like a sound smack given to Marci Hamilton.That should have ended “the FLDS case,” right? Not for Ranger Brooks Long. The legal pleadings state that Ranger prepared an affidavit in support of an arrest and search warrant in connection with an alleged sexual assault of a child named “Sarah Jessop” by one “Dale Barlow.” The affidavit informed Judge Walther that Brooks had “credible” information that both the victim and the perpetrator were residing at the FLDS compound. While Long’s affidavit informed Judge Walther that Barlow had been placed on probation for a sex offense conviction obtained in Arizona in 2007, the Ranger neglected to inform the judge that the conditions of Barlow’s probation restricted travel outside of Arizona; that the Mohave Sheriff’s Office had determined that Barlow had never left the State of Arizona; that the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office had provided information to Sheriff Doran’s office that Barlow had never been to the FLDS compound in Texas; that the anonymous caller had told Jessica Carroll that Barlow had left the FLDS compound; and that the Schleicher County Sheriff’s office had determined that the alleged victim had never been treated at the local medical center as she claimed to the New Bridge employees.
In effect, Ranger Long provided the judge with enough false and misleading information to establish probable cause for the issuance of an arrest and search warrant for Dale Barlow. Ranger Long then proceeded to amass an armada of law enforcement officers, SWAT team “precision” snipers, a tank-like armored personnel carrier, a “no fly zone” designation over the area from Homeland Security, and a deployment of military-like surveillance aircraft over the entire area—all this for the single arrest of one suspect who had no history of violence and who reportedly was living among people described by Sheriff Doran as docile and peaceful.
Health Care and Massachussetts
Paul Krugman thinks we should look to health care in Massachussetts as a model for government healthcare.
But among many other problems, their health care costs have shot up 28 percent. More here.
But among many other problems, their health care costs have shot up 28 percent. More here.
Nurse claims she was forced to help with abortion
From the New York Post:
She was just following orders- even though when hired she had made it clear she would not help with abortions (and put it in writing). And afterwards she found:
Not satisfied with coercing her into murder, the hospital staff sought to punish her further:
Regardless of how they felt about the procedure, this seems a rather bizarre decision on the part of hospital staff- is a nurse emotionally conflicted and distraught over abortions really the best choice to assist in an abortion?
A Brooklyn nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will.
The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.
"It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn't been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.
She was just following orders- even though when hired she had made it clear she would not help with abortions (and put it in writing). And afterwards she found:
that the hospital's own records deemed the procedure "Category II," which is not considered immediately life threatening.
Not satisfied with coercing her into murder, the hospital staff sought to punish her further:
The day after the procedure, Cenzon-DeCarlo filed a grievance with her union. Later that week, she was cornered by two supervisors who told her if she wanted any more overtime shifts, she would have to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions, the suit says.
Regardless of how they felt about the procedure, this seems a rather bizarre decision on the part of hospital staff- is a nurse emotionally conflicted and distraught over abortions really the best choice to assist in an abortion?
Police Stories
A plurality of anecdotes, which I know are not data:
Scott had three squad cars, at least one pulled off of a high profile shooting case, for the crime of baby sitting while white. He knew the right questions to ask, otherwise, the story might have ended differently.
Just last night I heard from a friend of ours, white, male, 20 or so, who, shortly after midnight, was on his way home from a day trip to an amusement park with a friend, also white, 21 or so, and male.
They got pulled over by an officer because, he said, the light over their license plate was burned out. The owner of the car guesses that must have been going on a while, because he didn't even know it has a bulb there. In the course of this stop- the officer required both young men to get of their car; he frisked them; he searched the car, and he demanded to know who they were, where they'd been, and where they were going.
The youngest of the two, our friend, had been sleeping when they got pulled over- he woke up groggy, and the police officer scared him into near senselessness. He suddenly couldn't remember his address, and he doesn't have a driver's license.
This did not endear him to the officer, but eventually they were released and allowed to go on their way. There was no reason to search their car or frisk them, and had the young men known their way around the law as well as Scott, above, they might have been less cooperative. But they were, as everybody I know knows to be when confronted with a cop, deferential, placatory, and humble. Liberal use of sir or ma'am also recommended. Had they yelled at the officer, called him names, and behaved belligerently, I have NO doubt they would have spent the rest of the night in jail. But they didn't behave in that fashion.
Now, I think it's most unfortunate that we live in a society so well trained as to believe that you 'got what you had coming' if you are arrested for passionately objecting to being unjustly pulled over, or visited by the police in your home for something you did not do, for being noisy or even quietly sneering at an officer, perhaps muttering imprecatory Psalms under your breath (that's facetious for the sarcasm impaired). That's a problem. But that doesn't alter the fact that most people I know are extremely deferential and subservient in their manners when stopped by the police.
During that discussion I learned about another young man in our circle- white, mid to late twenties- he spent one summer visiting his girlfriend every single night, leaving late. Over the course of the summer he says he got pulled over at least four times as he was driving in the middle of the night- never got a ticket or even a written warning- but was always pulled over for some trivial reason that was clearly just an excuse to pull over a youngish looking man in the middle of the night and see what he was doing out so late. Every time the cops were brusque, aggressive, and in full intimidation mode. Had this young man responded by screaming, "You guys are just after me because of stereotyping my age group, you jerks just leave me alone, I don't have to put up with this," I have every expectation that he, too, would have gone to jail.
But none of these friends responded with passionate objections - although I think they had that right- because they know that if they argue with the man with the badge and the cuffs, they will lose even if they are right.
My husband got pulled over for no better reason than his looks when he was a young, long-haired punk. He also knew to be deferential, placatory, and humble. He learned this from hard experience, his own and his friends'. I thought he was going to have a heart attack when I told him about being pulled over by a cop when we were dating and how snippy I was with the officer. Basically, he told me, "Never, ever, do that again- you don't know what they might do to you."
Several years ago a then 20 something friend of mine, white, female, told me she'd mouthed off at cops once when she lived in LA, cops she felt had stopped her for no good reason, and she spent the night in jail- with bruises. It was an experience she never forgot and never talked that much about.
My youngest brother, a bit of a rebel (a bit?!) was a skateboarder with hair down to his waist well into his 20's, and he got stopped by cops on a regular basis as he made his way from point A to point B- he didn't get taken to the slammer, so far as I know, because he had also learned to be deferential, subservient, and ingratiating with the police if he wanted to go on with his business with the minimum of fuss. But there was no reason to pull him over simply because he had long hair and was on a skate board (he wasn't ever ticketed for the board, btw, this wasn't about skateboarding in unauthorized places).
I was watching Oprah a couple decades ago, and she had an episode on racial profiling- after her guests spoke she took comments from the audience, and a number of whites told similar stories of harassment and hostile treatment at the hands of the police. One man said he'd been setting off fireworks in his front yard with his family on the fourth of July. He admitted that he had some a bit larger than code. But, he said, the police came, tossed him face down on the ground and called him the 'n' word- this stunned Oprah- the guy was white. He spent the night in jail, IIRC.
Other people shared similar stories. Then a cop got up, outraged, and said, basically, "What you all are missing is that you were all guilty. YOu deserved what you got."
And one of Oprah's guests said, in essence, "What you are missing is that you are a police officer, not a judge, jury, and prison warden selecting our punishment."
Based on the anecdotal experiences of my friends, I suspect that a lot of people are far too optimistic about how this doesn't happen to white guys. I think they underestimate how often the police stop people on what amounts to fishing expeditions.
Scott reviews the Gates/Crowley case and concludes:
Insofar as race was involved, it appears to me that was largely Professor Gate's doing the stereotyping and profiling. I think Gates behaved and continues to behave very, very poorly. Rather than race, I think this conflict was the result of a collision between Gates' sense of privilege and entitlement and the officer's sense of entitlement to deference to his 'command presence.'
I hope the tapes of the officer's radio calls will be released, but I expect neither Gates or Crowley really wants that to happen, as we will find that each of them behaved less well than they would like us to believe.
Scott had three squad cars, at least one pulled off of a high profile shooting case, for the crime of baby sitting while white. He knew the right questions to ask, otherwise, the story might have ended differently.
Just last night I heard from a friend of ours, white, male, 20 or so, who, shortly after midnight, was on his way home from a day trip to an amusement park with a friend, also white, 21 or so, and male.
They got pulled over by an officer because, he said, the light over their license plate was burned out. The owner of the car guesses that must have been going on a while, because he didn't even know it has a bulb there. In the course of this stop- the officer required both young men to get of their car; he frisked them; he searched the car, and he demanded to know who they were, where they'd been, and where they were going.
The youngest of the two, our friend, had been sleeping when they got pulled over- he woke up groggy, and the police officer scared him into near senselessness. He suddenly couldn't remember his address, and he doesn't have a driver's license.
This did not endear him to the officer, but eventually they were released and allowed to go on their way. There was no reason to search their car or frisk them, and had the young men known their way around the law as well as Scott, above, they might have been less cooperative. But they were, as everybody I know knows to be when confronted with a cop, deferential, placatory, and humble. Liberal use of sir or ma'am also recommended. Had they yelled at the officer, called him names, and behaved belligerently, I have NO doubt they would have spent the rest of the night in jail. But they didn't behave in that fashion.
Now, I think it's most unfortunate that we live in a society so well trained as to believe that you 'got what you had coming' if you are arrested for passionately objecting to being unjustly pulled over, or visited by the police in your home for something you did not do, for being noisy or even quietly sneering at an officer, perhaps muttering imprecatory Psalms under your breath (that's facetious for the sarcasm impaired). That's a problem. But that doesn't alter the fact that most people I know are extremely deferential and subservient in their manners when stopped by the police.
During that discussion I learned about another young man in our circle- white, mid to late twenties- he spent one summer visiting his girlfriend every single night, leaving late. Over the course of the summer he says he got pulled over at least four times as he was driving in the middle of the night- never got a ticket or even a written warning- but was always pulled over for some trivial reason that was clearly just an excuse to pull over a youngish looking man in the middle of the night and see what he was doing out so late. Every time the cops were brusque, aggressive, and in full intimidation mode. Had this young man responded by screaming, "You guys are just after me because of stereotyping my age group, you jerks just leave me alone, I don't have to put up with this," I have every expectation that he, too, would have gone to jail.
But none of these friends responded with passionate objections - although I think they had that right- because they know that if they argue with the man with the badge and the cuffs, they will lose even if they are right.
My husband got pulled over for no better reason than his looks when he was a young, long-haired punk. He also knew to be deferential, placatory, and humble. He learned this from hard experience, his own and his friends'. I thought he was going to have a heart attack when I told him about being pulled over by a cop when we were dating and how snippy I was with the officer. Basically, he told me, "Never, ever, do that again- you don't know what they might do to you."
Several years ago a then 20 something friend of mine, white, female, told me she'd mouthed off at cops once when she lived in LA, cops she felt had stopped her for no good reason, and she spent the night in jail- with bruises. It was an experience she never forgot and never talked that much about.
My youngest brother, a bit of a rebel (a bit?!) was a skateboarder with hair down to his waist well into his 20's, and he got stopped by cops on a regular basis as he made his way from point A to point B- he didn't get taken to the slammer, so far as I know, because he had also learned to be deferential, subservient, and ingratiating with the police if he wanted to go on with his business with the minimum of fuss. But there was no reason to pull him over simply because he had long hair and was on a skate board (he wasn't ever ticketed for the board, btw, this wasn't about skateboarding in unauthorized places).
I was watching Oprah a couple decades ago, and she had an episode on racial profiling- after her guests spoke she took comments from the audience, and a number of whites told similar stories of harassment and hostile treatment at the hands of the police. One man said he'd been setting off fireworks in his front yard with his family on the fourth of July. He admitted that he had some a bit larger than code. But, he said, the police came, tossed him face down on the ground and called him the 'n' word- this stunned Oprah- the guy was white. He spent the night in jail, IIRC.
Other people shared similar stories. Then a cop got up, outraged, and said, basically, "What you all are missing is that you were all guilty. YOu deserved what you got."
And one of Oprah's guests said, in essence, "What you are missing is that you are a police officer, not a judge, jury, and prison warden selecting our punishment."
Based on the anecdotal experiences of my friends, I suspect that a lot of people are far too optimistic about how this doesn't happen to white guys. I think they underestimate how often the police stop people on what amounts to fishing expeditions.
Scott reviews the Gates/Crowley case and concludes:
I think its root cause may or may not have been racial but was much more definitely the result of basic police training regarding how officers are taught to engage with the public. In this case, even after learning that Gates was in his own home and they'd been called out based on an error, officers still wanted to maintain a "command presence," in the policing lingo, and Professor Gates apparently was having none of it.
Insofar as race was involved, it appears to me that was largely Professor Gate's doing the stereotyping and profiling. I think Gates behaved and continues to behave very, very poorly. Rather than race, I think this conflict was the result of a collision between Gates' sense of privilege and entitlement and the officer's sense of entitlement to deference to his 'command presence.'
I hope the tapes of the officer's radio calls will be released, but I expect neither Gates or Crowley really wants that to happen, as we will find that each of them behaved less well than they would like us to believe.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sunday Hymn Post
This is one of Shasta's favorite songs to sing around the bonfire pit here, Shasta used to help out with the music at a Cowboy Church), and he liked it even before he knew about the newborn baby he hopes to be holding come September.
Hear it acapella here.
Because He Lives
the Gaithers
God sent His son, they called Him Jesus
He came to love, heal, and forgive.
He lived and died to buy my pardon,
An empty grave is there to prove my Savior lives.
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
How sweet to hold a newborn baby,
And feel the pride and joy he gives.
But greater still the calm assurance,
This child can face uncertain days because He lives.
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
And then one day I'll cross the river,
I'll fight life's final war with pain.
And then as death gives way to victory,
I'll see the lights of glory and I'll know He lives.
Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone!
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living just because He lives!
Hear it acapella here.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Examined Life
Repost:
The most important point that Arnold Bennett makes in 'How To Live On 24 Hours a Day' is that some time every day, perhaps during the commute home from work, should be spent on some self-examination. As others have mentioned before, including those of us here at the Common Room, happiness is not the goal, it is a by-product. When we focus on happiness or that other will 'o the wisp, 'fulfilment,' these things actually become more and elusive, slipping just out of our grasp and distracting us from the sorts of things that provide more meaning and fulfillment to life. Bennet says that:
Towards that end he recommends that in every day, some part should be devoted:
Writing in roughly the same era, Charlotte Mason wrote:
A due recognition of the function of reason should be an enormous help to us all in days when the air is full of fallacies.... Nevertheless, it is something to recognise that probably no wrong thing has ever been done or said, no crime committed, but has been justified to the perpetrator by arguments coming to him involuntarily and produced with cumulative force by his own reason.
Charlotte Mason, volume 6, page 143
Writing some decades later, Chuck Colson said of his (at the time) well deliberated reasons for his involvement in Watergate:
Arnold Bennett points out some evidence that we are less reasonable people than we imagine:
Charlotte Mason put it this way:
~ Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, pages 142-3Emphasis mine
This honest self-evaluation on a daily business is no easy thing. And quite often those of who read the most books are reading our books to avoid this very uncomfortable practice, but as Arnold Bennett says:
Richard Mitchell, writing several decades later in a book I cannot recommend highly enough- The Gift of Fire- also addresses the importance of accurate, open-eyed, even ruthless self-examination in order to attain genuine self-knowledge- which is the furthest thing imaginable from self-esteem. He says,
Reading books is an important part of self-examination, if I'm reading good, well written books, books by such authors as Jane Austen, Dickens, Tolkien, Dostoevsky, and others. This is because an excellent writer is able to give us insight into the inner lives of other characters that we may not otherwise be able to able to experience. And we can turn that mirror around and see ourselves. Something along these lines, says Mitchell (and nearly every educator in the classic tradition, which tradition Charlotte Mason actually followed more closely than Dorothy Sayers):
Plato famously said the unexamined life is not worth living, and sometimes I think he was a bit of a snob for saying so. I suspect that when I think that, part of the problem is my own unexamined life and my lack of understanding. I doubt very much he was speaking of that sort of self-centered, self appreciative naval gazing promoted in the self-help section of our bookstores and in women's magazines. Richard Mitchell's thinking is more informed:
In another time and place this same need for some sort of accurate, objective self-examination is recommended in such terms as “search me and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts" (Psalms 139), "Take ye therefore good heed to yourselves, lest ye corrupt yourselves." (Deut 5:15,16), "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves. Know ye not your ownselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (II Cor. 13:5), "My spirit made diligent search" (Ps. 77:6) "I thought on my ways" (Ps. 119:59). There we are also warned against the unexamined life and against a less than careful self-examination- we... behold our faces in a glass, and soon forget what manner of men we are" (James 1:23-24),"The heart of man is deceitful" (Jer. 17:9)“He that trusts his own heart, is a fool” (Prov. 28:26).
True education will equip us to make this sort of unflinching, genuine self-examination, which will be the opposite of self-admiration. In making that self-examination, the truly educated will be able to discern rubbish from reason, and then do something about it.
Does my conduct match my principles? Does yours? I do not mean in general terms. I mean, if spend a few minutes thinking about specific actions I took (or did not take) today, did they match my principles? What adjustments do I need to make? Did the choices I make today reflect my principles or contradict them? If I can justify them, does my reasoning match my principles? Are these comfortable questions? Not particularly. Does a young mother with five children under six have the leisure (or the clear-headed insight of those who have gotten a full night's sleep) to do this on a daily basis? Probably not. But because we cannot always be examining our lives and considering our conduct does not mean we never should try.
And the thing about this examined life is that it can be done without tools, without books, without paper. It can be done while nursing the baby, while lying in bed, while chopping onions for supper, while walking to the park or driving to swimming lessons.
Previous posts on related topics here, here, here, and here.
The most important point that Arnold Bennett makes in 'How To Live On 24 Hours a Day' is that some time every day, perhaps during the commute home from work, should be spent on some self-examination. As others have mentioned before, including those of us here at the Common Room, happiness is not the goal, it is a by-product. When we focus on happiness or that other will 'o the wisp, 'fulfilment,' these things actually become more and elusive, slipping just out of our grasp and distracting us from the sorts of things that provide more meaning and fulfillment to life. Bennet says that:
happiness comes 'from the development of reason and the adjustment of conduct to principles.
Towards that end he recommends that in every day, some part should be devoted:
'to the deliberate consideration of your reason, principles, and conduct...'
...a life in which conduct does not fairly well accord with principles is a silly life; and that conduct can only be made to accord with principles by means of daily examination, reflection, and resolution. What leads to the permanent sorrowfulness of burglars is that their principles are contrary to burglary. If they genuinely
believed in the moral excellence of burglary, penal servitude would simply mean so many happy years for them; all martyrs are happy, because their conduct and their principles agree.
Writing in roughly the same era, Charlotte Mason wrote:
A due recognition of the function of reason should be an enormous help to us all in days when the air is full of fallacies.... Nevertheless, it is something to recognise that probably no wrong thing has ever been done or said, no crime committed, but has been justified to the perpetrator by arguments coming to him involuntarily and produced with cumulative force by his own reason.
Charlotte Mason, volume 6, page 143
Writing some decades later, Chuck Colson said of his (at the time) well deliberated reasons for his involvement in Watergate:
... we humans all have an infinite capacity for self-justification. Jeremiah was right: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?'"
~ Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, 'The Return of Watergate'
Arnold Bennett points out some evidence that we are less reasonable people than we imagine:
As for reason (which makes conduct, and is not unconnected with the making of principles), it plays a far smaller part in our lives than we fancy. We are supposed to be reasonable but we are much more instinctive than reasonable. And the less we reflect, the less reasonable we shall be. The next time you get cross with the waiter because your steak is over-cooked, ask reason to step into the cabinet-room of your mind, and consult her. She will probably tell you that the waiter did not cook the steak, and had no control over the cooking of the steak; and that even if he alone was to blame, you accomplished nothing good by getting
cross; you merely lost your dignity, looked a fool in the eyes of sensible men, and soured the waiter, while producing no effect whatever on the steak.
Charlotte Mason put it this way:
"After abundant practice in reasoning and tracing out the reasons of others, whether in fact or fiction, children may readily be brought to the conclusions that reasonable and right are not synonymous terms; that reason is their servant, not their ruler.... But no more than appetite, ambition, or the love of ease, is reason to be trusted with the government of a man, much less that of a state; because well-reasoned arguments are brought into play for a wrong course as for a right. He will see that reason works involuntarily; that all the beautiful steps follow one another in his mind without any activity or intention on his own part; but he need never suppose that he was hurried along into evil by thoughts which he could not help, because reason never begins it. It is only when he chooses to think about some course or plan, as Eve standing before the apples, that reason comes into play; so, if he chooses to think about a purpose that is good, many excellent reasons will hurry up to support him; but, alas, if he choose to entertain a wrong notion, he, as it were, rings the bell for reason, which enforces his wrong intention with a score of arguments proving that wrong is right. "
~ Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, pages 142-3Emphasis mine
This honest self-evaluation on a daily business is no easy thing. And quite often those of who read the most books are reading our books to avoid this very uncomfortable practice, but as Arnold Bennett says:
no reading of books will take the place of a daily, candid, honest examination of what one has recently done, and what one is about to do--of a steady looking at one's self in the face (disconcerting though the sight may be).
Richard Mitchell, writing several decades later in a book I cannot recommend highly enough- The Gift of Fire- also addresses the importance of accurate, open-eyed, even ruthless self-examination in order to attain genuine self-knowledge- which is the furthest thing imaginable from self-esteem. He says,
"It is a power that we all nod at, when we hear of it, for we all have it, and even use it once in a while, although often under duress. Self-knowledge may be good to have, but whenever I get a flash of it, I find myself hoping that no one else knows what I have just come to know."
Reading books is an important part of self-examination, if I'm reading good, well written books, books by such authors as Jane Austen, Dickens, Tolkien, Dostoevsky, and others. This is because an excellent writer is able to give us insight into the inner lives of other characters that we may not otherwise be able to able to experience. And we can turn that mirror around and see ourselves. Something along these lines, says Mitchell (and nearly every educator in the classic tradition, which tradition Charlotte Mason actually followed more closely than Dorothy Sayers):
It is power over the inner world, the ability to know and judge the self and to do something about it. It is not, therefore, the same as whatever it is that gives us power over the outer world, the stubborn public world of Nature and Necessity. The two powers neither preclude each other nor include each other. In any mind, either may exist alone, both may exist, and, of course, in any mind, both may be absent.
The two powers are not exactly equal counterparts, however, for the power over the inner world can make judgment of the power over the outer world. By the latter, we can do something; by the former, we can decide whether we should do what we can do.
Should we, in fact, destroy most of the world and its people, future generations might say of us:
They did what they could. They did anything and everything they could. They seem to have had no way of knowing, and were not especially interested in asking, whether they should do whatever they could.
The ability to know and judge the self may seem a rather minimal, and, to some, even a selfish and antisocial definition of education, but imagine instead some understanding of education from which it is excluded. Such an understanding is what is stuck in our heads by popular beliefs about schooling. Out of it, we suppose that a brain surgeon--why is it always brain surgeons?--is educated. And we suppose the same, but without expecting to pay as much for it, of our teachers and professors, especially of those who have stuck us with the idea that education is the power to work change in the outer world of Nature and Necessity. And then we say that it is all those overeducated theorists and physicists who are going to blow us all up.
Plato famously said the unexamined life is not worth living, and sometimes I think he was a bit of a snob for saying so. I suspect that when I think that, part of the problem is my own unexamined life and my lack of understanding. I doubt very much he was speaking of that sort of self-centered, self appreciative naval gazing promoted in the self-help section of our bookstores and in women's magazines. Richard Mitchell's thinking is more informed:
He who has no reliable way of telling rubbish from Reason can have no knowledge of the self that he is to judge and control, by which judgment, and only by which judgment, he is able to choose the better over the worse. It will not only be the voice of the world that deceives him; his own voice will deceive him. As to his own beliefs and propositions, which may not even be his own, but only his recitations of what the world says, he will not be able to tell rubbish from Reason. That condition, however, need not hinder his effectiveness in bringing about changes in the outer world. He may be perfectly capable of what is nowadays called "excellence," which is the new name for a particularly visible combination of efficiency and success, a high and measurable degree of effectiveness in problem-solving. It has to do with such things as the marketing of blow dryers, in which sort of enterprise the words "better" and "worse" have not the same meanings as they had for the men who didn't throw stones.
In another time and place this same need for some sort of accurate, objective self-examination is recommended in such terms as “search me and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts" (Psalms 139), "Take ye therefore good heed to yourselves, lest ye corrupt yourselves." (Deut 5:15,16), "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves. Know ye not your ownselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (II Cor. 13:5), "My spirit made diligent search" (Ps. 77:6) "I thought on my ways" (Ps. 119:59). There we are also warned against the unexamined life and against a less than careful self-examination- we... behold our faces in a glass, and soon forget what manner of men we are" (James 1:23-24),"The heart of man is deceitful" (Jer. 17:9)“He that trusts his own heart, is a fool” (Prov. 28:26).
True education will equip us to make this sort of unflinching, genuine self-examination, which will be the opposite of self-admiration. In making that self-examination, the truly educated will be able to discern rubbish from reason, and then do something about it.
Does my conduct match my principles? Does yours? I do not mean in general terms. I mean, if spend a few minutes thinking about specific actions I took (or did not take) today, did they match my principles? What adjustments do I need to make? Did the choices I make today reflect my principles or contradict them? If I can justify them, does my reasoning match my principles? Are these comfortable questions? Not particularly. Does a young mother with five children under six have the leisure (or the clear-headed insight of those who have gotten a full night's sleep) to do this on a daily basis? Probably not. But because we cannot always be examining our lives and considering our conduct does not mean we never should try.
And the thing about this examined life is that it can be done without tools, without books, without paper. It can be done while nursing the baby, while lying in bed, while chopping onions for supper, while walking to the park or driving to swimming lessons.
Previous posts on related topics here, here, here, and here.
The Engine of Poverty
Don't agree with every jot and tittle, but this is a good read:
If you are motivated by a humanitarian desire to help the poor – the ostensible mission of much of the modern liberal state – you must realize that nothing helps them more than the increased standard of living and economic opportunity brought about by the private sector. Every government action that shrinks the private sector hurts the poor. It hurts everyone else, too, except for the political class, and the plutocrats who find ways to shape legislation to their benefit… but it hurts the poor the most. Consider the “stimulus” travesty Obama and the Democrats shoved down the nation’s throat. It stimulated nothing, and drained billions of dollars away from a private economy that could have used those resources better. It wasn’t merely a waste of money. The value of every wasted government dollar must be judged by what free enterprise could have accomplished with it. The untold tragedy of the economy is the hidden story of all the things free people could do, if we started emptying out some of those fortresses in Washington and returning their money to them. The economy we have today might make you angry, but the economy we could have should make you furious.
Out of Town...ish
Shasta and The Equuschick are heading north to house and dog-sit for some friends this week, so be sure to miss them dreadfully and to sniffle a bit when you remember that The Equuschick is Offline.
She is a bit tense about packing and such at the moment but once she is there she plans to spend the week on the couch with lots of puppies watching Animal Planet and going to a County Fair with Shasta and she won't talk to any peoples but Shasta, she doesn't think, and she'll read and eat alot and be quiet and with any luck, she'll be able to go most of the week without seeing People as such at all except for Sunday.
Hey, The Equuschick has had a very stretching and growing week. It has been like A Week of Acting Like a Real Grown-up. (Except for the part where the The Tea Chemist and The Equuschick played on the playground toys, she forgot about that.)
But ant-social remains what The Equuschick does best.
She is a bit tense about packing and such at the moment but once she is there she plans to spend the week on the couch with lots of puppies watching Animal Planet and going to a County Fair with Shasta and she won't talk to any peoples but Shasta, she doesn't think, and she'll read and eat alot and be quiet and with any luck, she'll be able to go most of the week without seeing People as such at all except for Sunday.
Hey, The Equuschick has had a very stretching and growing week. It has been like A Week of Acting Like a Real Grown-up. (Except for the part where the The Tea Chemist and The Equuschick played on the playground toys, she forgot about that.)
But ant-social remains what The Equuschick does best.
Wierd Quirks
When my husband is out of town on a business trip I will stay up way too late reading or perusing the internet in bed. I may go to sleep with the light on. I may go to sleep watching a DVD in the laptop. I will go to sleep surrounded by books and writing material. I will totally take his pillow.
What I won't do?
Sleep anywhere but my side of the bed. I don't take his side, I won't even spread out and take the middle. I stay strictly on my side of the bed, just as if he were where he belongs, next to me.
Because in my heart, he is.
Yes, this week my husband was gone, He left Sunday afternoon on a business trip and he got back yesterday evening with enough time for a nap before our monthly singing (we had around forty people). This is one of the weightier reasons why we had decided that the boys would not come until Friday, but when asked by the five year old I couldn't resist and so they came on Wednesday instead.=)
I could NOT do this if it weren't for the way all the Progeny at home and even our summer Gumly (guest/family) really pull together and pick up all my slack. They are all amazing.
How did he feel when he found out we got the boys so much sooner than we'd said we would have them? Well, my husband says my low sales resistance to adorable five year olds is one of the things he loves about me.=)
I am richly blessed and it is a humbling thing.
What I won't do?
Sleep anywhere but my side of the bed. I don't take his side, I won't even spread out and take the middle. I stay strictly on my side of the bed, just as if he were where he belongs, next to me.
Because in my heart, he is.
Yes, this week my husband was gone, He left Sunday afternoon on a business trip and he got back yesterday evening with enough time for a nap before our monthly singing (we had around forty people). This is one of the weightier reasons why we had decided that the boys would not come until Friday, but when asked by the five year old I couldn't resist and so they came on Wednesday instead.=)
I could NOT do this if it weren't for the way all the Progeny at home and even our summer Gumly (guest/family) really pull together and pick up all my slack. They are all amazing.
How did he feel when he found out we got the boys so much sooner than we'd said we would have them? Well, my husband says my low sales resistance to adorable five year olds is one of the things he loves about me.=)
I am richly blessed and it is a humbling thing.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Liberty and the Government
Jefferson believed that government was the greatest, if not only, threat to individual liberty. He wrote that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”[6]This is so because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will increase to the level that it will be despotic. Jefferson wrote to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819, “It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also. . . .”[7]With this principle of necessary limitation in mind, Jefferson declared “that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest upon inference.”[8]
Jefferson’s position was that neither the United States, nor any of the branches of the government, nor of the states, is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Ultimate authority is not vested in the United States government. It is a limited government. On the dispersion of powers among the governments, he wrote to Joseph C. Cabell in 1816: “Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties . . . .” and so forth. “It is by dividing and subdividing . . . that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body . . . .”[11
More here.
The Equuschick Was Visited by a Creative Spirit This Morning
(That doesn't usually happen, really.)
In the process of wrapping a birthday present for a friend she discovered that the only wrapping paper she had was either wedding or Christmas themed. Just not the thing for a July birthday, you know.
But as this particular friend is of a creative turn of mind herself and is fond of cooking, The Equuschick dug out a number of cooking magazines from the recesses of a cupboard somewhere and selected some recipes with yummy-looking illustrations and cut out enough pages to wrap the gift neatly and at the same time, preserve the recipes.
She tried to persuade the Creative Spirit to stay a while and have some tea, but one supposes that sort of spirit must always be busy finding distracted morons like The Equuschick to inspire.
In the process of wrapping a birthday present for a friend she discovered that the only wrapping paper she had was either wedding or Christmas themed. Just not the thing for a July birthday, you know.
But as this particular friend is of a creative turn of mind herself and is fond of cooking, The Equuschick dug out a number of cooking magazines from the recesses of a cupboard somewhere and selected some recipes with yummy-looking illustrations and cut out enough pages to wrap the gift neatly and at the same time, preserve the recipes.
She tried to persuade the Creative Spirit to stay a while and have some tea, but one supposes that sort of spirit must always be busy finding distracted morons like The Equuschick to inspire.
The HG and Being a Nanny
"I need some ideas," Mom, she told me last night, "On entertaining six children under five."
I told her I'd ask the blog world, and she said that would be fine.
Yesterday she had those six under fives in her room and Strider got online. They have webcam access. At first the children were slow to warm up, but Strider is not a shy violet. He quickly gained their interest, if not their understanding in exactly how this magical machine worked.
He showed them the family dogs, first one, then the other. He showed them something else. Then:
"Hey!" asked a five year old, "Can you show us a sheep?"
So... suggestions for amusing six children five and under- what have you got for us?
I told her I'd ask the blog world, and she said that would be fine.
Yesterday she had those six under fives in her room and Strider got online. They have webcam access. At first the children were slow to warm up, but Strider is not a shy violet. He quickly gained their interest, if not their understanding in exactly how this magical machine worked.
He showed them the family dogs, first one, then the other. He showed them something else. Then:
"Hey!" asked a five year old, "Can you show us a sheep?"
So... suggestions for amusing six children five and under- what have you got for us?
Eugenics and the Science Czar, cont.
Previously I blogged about the abortion as eugenics statement from Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg recently, the one where she said she thought the reason people were in favor of abortion was to reduce the surplus population of undesirable groups. She realized that wasn't the motivation when, in 1980, the court upheld the ban on Medicaid funding of abortion. William Grigg at Reason makes one of the same points I made, only more succinctly:
Exactly- and I find that immensely disturbing, creepy, even. Reason's Grigg asks another question- WHY did she think that the purpose of abortion support was to recreate a eugenicist system in America?
In 1968 Holden, now Obama's Science Czar, co-authored a nasty little book advocating forced abortion, sterilization and other Nazi like procedures on a public guilty of no greater crime than precreating. I blogged about it here. He co-authored it with Paul Ehrlich, who had published The Population Bomb in 1968. No doubt Bader-Ginsburg was familiar with it, and, at the very least, it offered extremely totalitarian methods of birth control- including forced abortion and sterilization, as possible solutions to the dreadful problem of overpopulation ("Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying."). You can read quotes and entire pages from Holden's book over at Zombietime. Please read it all.
Grigg notes that connection, and also this:
Ehrich and Jafee both liked the idea of putting sterilization agents in the water supply, compulsory abortion for out of wedlock pregnancies, and requiring governmental permission to give birth. Other sources for Bader-Ginsburg's understanding that her pro-choice peers were in it for the eugenics:
Here's a slightly edited repost of something I wrote about Ehrlich a few years ago: IN his book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich describes his epiphany, that moment when he was suddenly blinded by the light of his knowledge that overpopulation was a cancer and realized the need to take drastic steps to treat individual humans as cancer cells on the earth. Here's what he wrote:
As more than one of his readers and reviewers has noted, the population density is just as great (or greater) in New York, London, and Tokyo as it is in Delhi. Population density was not the problem in India. The problem was poverty. I'm not so sure, however, that an equal amount of poverty in the apartments in New York would not have resulted in such an emotional reaction from Ehrlich.
It seems to be the very 'otherness' of the darker skinned Indians that made their teeming proximity so disturbing to him.
Here's what the Ehrlichs think of their book now:
Perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Ehrlich Quotes
there was an interval of roughly seven years during which Ginsburg, a well-informed and influential academic, believed that America was creating a eugenicist system in which abortion would help reduce “undesirable” populations -- however those populations would be defined. This was what Roe had wrought, Ginsburg believed for several years, and if she ever experienced misgivings about it, she managed to keep them private.
Exactly- and I find that immensely disturbing, creepy, even. Reason's Grigg asks another question- WHY did she think that the purpose of abortion support was to recreate a eugenicist system in America?
Where did Ginsburg -- a rising star in academe long before being tapped to fill the Rosa Klebb seat on the Supreme Court -- get the impression that American policy-making elites were discussing the use of welfare subsidies to bring about the attrition of “undesirable” populations?
In 1968 Holden, now Obama's Science Czar, co-authored a nasty little book advocating forced abortion, sterilization and other Nazi like procedures on a public guilty of no greater crime than precreating. I blogged about it here. He co-authored it with Paul Ehrlich, who had published The Population Bomb in 1968. No doubt Bader-Ginsburg was familiar with it, and, at the very least, it offered extremely totalitarian methods of birth control- including forced abortion and sterilization, as possible solutions to the dreadful problem of overpopulation ("Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying."). You can read quotes and entire pages from Holden's book over at Zombietime. Please read it all.
Grigg notes that connection, and also this:
In 1967, sociologist, demographer, and population control heavyweight Kingsley Davis published an essay in Science magazine observing that “the social structure and economy must be changed before a deliberate reduction in the birthrate can be achieved” in the West. He urged governments to subsidize voluntary abortion and sterilization and restructure their tax systems to discourage both marriage and childbirth.
Davis’s recommendations apparently inspired Frederick Jaffe, Vice President of Planned Parenthood, when he composed a 1969 memorandum intended for use as a template for anti-natalist efforts.
Ehrich and Jafee both liked the idea of putting sterilization agents in the water supply, compulsory abortion for out of wedlock pregnancies, and requiring governmental permission to give birth. Other sources for Bader-Ginsburg's understanding that her pro-choice peers were in it for the eugenics:
Kingsley Davis, Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, and sundry Planned Parenthood leaders – who endorsed the 1971 manifesto The Case for Compulsory Birth Controlby Edgar R. Chasteen. That book offered one-stop shopping for policy-makers seeking draconian population management methods.Just how far were the pro-choice eugenicists willing to go?
Arguably the most astonishing variant on this approach was proposed in 1994, just prior to the UN's International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt.
In a book entitled Too Many People, Sir Roy Calne, a noted British physician, proposed a universal minimum childbearing age of 25, and a strict two-child quota. Those seeking the government-dispensed "privilege" of having children would have to pass a state-mandated parenting class and receive the appropriate "reproduction license." Those who violate those restrictions would lose their children and face Chinese-style economic sanctions and criminal punishments.
Calne also suggested the development of an engineered sterility pathogen -- he called it the "O virus" -- that could be administered to women world-wide as a vaccine.
Here's a slightly edited repost of something I wrote about Ehrlich a few years ago: IN his book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich describes his epiphany, that moment when he was suddenly blinded by the light of his knowledge that overpopulation was a cancer and realized the need to take drastic steps to treat individual humans as cancer cells on the earth. Here's what he wrote:
`I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time. I came to understand it emotionally one stinking hot night in Delhi a few years ago. My wife and daughter and I were returning to our hotel in an ancient taxi. The seats were hopping with fleas. The only functional gear was third. As we crawled through the city, we entered a crowded slum area. The temperature was well over 100, and the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, hand horn squawking, the dust, noise, heat and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel? All three of us were, frankly, frightened. It seemed that anything could happen - but, of course, nothing did. …….Perhaps, but since that night I’ve known the feel of overpopulation. '
As more than one of his readers and reviewers has noted, the population density is just as great (or greater) in New York, London, and Tokyo as it is in Delhi. Population density was not the problem in India. The problem was poverty. I'm not so sure, however, that an equal amount of poverty in the apartments in New York would not have resulted in such an emotional reaction from Ehrlich.
It seems to be the very 'otherness' of the darker skinned Indians that made their teeming proximity so disturbing to him.
Here's what the Ehrlichs think of their book now:
Perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Ehrlich Quotes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
