Thou shalt not covet . . .

Even though it's one of the ten commandments, I don't think people really pay attention to why it's so important not to covet. This article from NRO really struck me as deeply insightful. Jealousy and covetousness are certainly going to need to be overcome before we can claim to be "the pure in heart." some quotes:

We almost never discuss envy anymore. “One may admit to pride, avarice, lust, anger, gluttony, and laziness, and one may even boast of them,” Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora wrote 20 years ago in Egalitarian Envy. “There is only one capital sin no one admits to: envy. ... Its symbol ought to be a mask.” This is a shame; the most pathetic of the seven deadly sins is perhaps the most consequential.

Indeed, just look again on the 20th century. Envy turned Germany cruel. In Russia, the ideology of envy — socialism — likewise ran amok under the label Bolshevism and threatened to overrun the world. The consequences of envy run even deeper. It will never be known how many millennia man endured in misery and darkness under the moldering blanket of envy. Helmut Schoeck writes in his timeless masterpiece, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, that whole societies, hobbled by envy, rejected innovation, and prosperity, preferring the arrested development of all to the advancement of the few.

Like the “scientific socialism” that concealed envy behind a slide rule, today’s liberals invoke social science as justification for their covetousness. In one famous study, a majority of people said they would rather make $50,000 if others earned $25,000 than earn $100,000 if others were making $200,000

[T]hese studies turn a vice into a virtue. With the exception of the self-esteem movement, which glorifies pride, it’s difficult to imagine another area where we so shamelessly tout a sin as the basis of public policy. All men lust in their hearts; shall we dole out concubines for those of us who can’t live like Hugh Hefner? Envy has its social utility, of course. Schoeck argues, along with Nietzsche, that envy helped hone our sense of justice. Fine. But America is supposed to be different, in part because unlike, say, Germany or Russia, America had no feudal past and hence lacked the historic breeding swamps of envy. America’s egalitarianism is supposed to be political and nothing more: No man is the involuntary servant of another. Beyond that, he is the captain of his self.

The man who orders a better meal than me has done no harm to me. And it is no man’s (or bureaucrat’s) job but my own to cool the fever of my futterneid.

The whole article is very insightful, I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. and let no one say that personal vice doesn't impact anyone else.

Who Knew Detroit Was This Bad?

Urban Decay.

The National Review Online has and article by a reporter for the Detroit News on the sorry state of the city - "Unions of Urban Decay." I knew Detroit was a mess, but had no idea it was this bad. (and it can't all be blamed on the auto industry). A few sobering statistics from a once-proud city:

• The Detroit Public School system currently graduates 22 percent of its entering freshman.
• African-American males who drop out of high school in Detroit have 73-percent unemployment in their 20s.
• The city has lost half its population since 1950.
• Detroit has a 70-percent child-illegitimacy rate.
• Detroit today sports a 47-percent adult illiteracy rate. (on par with Bangladesh and trailing the Republic of Chad).
• An estimated 30 percent of Detroit’s population is in government employ. (Read: unionized).

He blames the city's problems on the unions, especially the teachers' union. It seems like there is a racial component too.

Michigan millionaire and philanthropist Robert Thompson, who in 2003 offered the city $200 million — $200 million! — to build 15 Detroit charter high schools. He was run out of town. Mayor Kwame Kilptrick, who sends his own kids to charter schools, advertised Detroit’s poisonous racial politics when he rapped the white businessman for trying “to ride in on a white horse” and save the city.
Or consider Dave Bing, a prominent black Detroit entrepreneur. The former Detroit Pistons star was heaped with scorn for partnering with Thompson. At a 2005 banquet hosted by the Call ‘Em Out Coalition, Bing was awarded a “Sambo Sell-Out Award” by Councilwoman Sharon McPhail.

Sad, very, very sad.

This can't help but be a huge drain on the state's economy. Detroit proper has almost 1/10 of the state's population, it's problems affect the rest of us heavily. For example, Detroit's unemployment rate is 13.8%, Michigan as a whole is 7.2%. (by my calculations, if Detroit was at 7.2% too, the statewide unemployment rate would only be 6.5%) That difference skews perception of the rest of the state.

Al Gore, Friend of the Animals

Al Gore is out to save the environment again. From Mary Katharine Ham's Townhall.com blog:

After Live Earth produced the carbon emissions of a small country in order to discourage carbon emissions, Gore has moved onto eating endangered species to encourage their preservation, I guess. Don't ask questions. He's a visionary:

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.
Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.
The species is currently managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources, the body which introduced a catch and trade documentation scheme as an attempt to tackle illegal poaching of this species.

The story comes from the Humane Society.

Apparently, endangered fish taste better than abundant ones. I guess that makes sense, if no one liked them, no one would catch them . . . and they wouldn't be endangered, right?

The Real Media Divide

This article puts into words several amorphous thought that have been floating around in my head for a while.

Everyone talks about the huge divide in our society, how everything is polarized, left and right, liberal and conservative, etc. But I think this article makes an excellent point. The left-right divide isn't the real issue, it is simply magnified by the News/Entertainment divide.

Most people are not news junkies. They are smart, and they pay attention to what is important, but they don't follow every nuance of every breaking story 24/7. Others (like me) DO follow everything.

The article points out that the huge increase in information availability in recent years -- with expanded adoption of cable, satellite and the internet has allowed nearly everyone to find sites or stations that they enjoy. Naturally the news junkies gravitate to Fox News and CNN, Rush and NPR, and those who aren't obsessed with news follow their interests elsewhere. The news junkies, being the loudest, magnify any difference to the level of a fundamental disagreement -- when in reality the two sides agree on goals, and just differ on methods. (that's a theme for another post).

In effect this has created a new "specialization" -- you could call them "news junkies." They (I should say we), use their own jargon, and spend a lot of time discussing highly involved issues online, by radio call-in, and in our own specialized journals (National Review, the New Republic, etc). Meanwhile the world outside goes on, and most people just can't spare the time and effort to become experts in our field.

We (news junkies) are a little like physicists -- one may vehemently insist that the "the Large Hadron Collider WILL be able to produce the Higgs boson!", while the other retorts, "it will NOT, dang it! the energies in question just aren't sufficient - IDIOT!" Pretty soon, there's fisticuffs in the lab, and it's all downhill from there.

Meanwhile, normal people watching this are either asleep, or calling for the nice young men in the clean white coats to come and take the physicists away to a happy home with nice soft walls. (yes, Dr. Jones, there'll be Higgs bosons there, nice ones, happy ones! . . . of course you can talk to them. . . Just come on . . . get in the van . . . that's it . . . )

I'm sure there are people dialing right now to get us news junkies some help before it's too late. (as long as the padded room gets National Review, I'm good).

;-)

Feminism losing ground?

The National Organization of Women is probably gathered in an emergency session today to deal with this new survey of mothers.

The Pew Research Center survey, being released today, found that only 21 percent of working mothers with children younger than 18 viewed full-time work as the best arrangement, down from 32 percent in 1997. Sixty percent of the working mothers said a part-time job would be best, up from 48 percent 10 years ago. And 19 percent said not working at all would be ideal — roughly the same as in 1997.
The survey also found a shift in preferences among stay-at-home mothers. Only 16 percent of them said their ideal situation would be to work full time outside the home, down from 24 percent in 1997. Conversely, 48 percent now say that not working at all outside the home is the best arrangement, up from 39 percent who felt that way in 1997. . . Cary Funk, a Pew researcher on the survey, said the trend reflected women's latest thoughts on the ideal arrangement for their children.

Apparently, not all modern women want to be workaholics. Oddly enough, many women believe that it would be better for their children if mom were at home either full or part time. . . huh . . . go figure. The really interesting part is the huge change in responses since 1997. Today, 33% fewer working mothers think full-time work is ideal than thought so 10 years ago. 25% more think part-time work would be best. That's a huge shift in a very short time. These aren't all new women entering the workforce with new ideas either. Many of the same women surveyed now were working in 1997. Many of these mothers are probably working in order to make ends meet rather than because they want to, given the cost of living "the good life" today.

Mothers who actually raise their children seem to be happier too. Today 33% fewer full-time moms want to be full-time workers outside the home than 10 years ago. Now 20% more full-time moms think they are doing what's best for their children than thought so in 1997. Almost half think that their being at home is best. (makes one wonder why the other half are at home, doesn't it?)

I can only guess at why opinions have changed so much. Maybe it's all the violence in schools, all the stupid internet videos of kids fighting, beating people, taking drugs, etc. maybe 9/11 changed the way we view families. Whatever the cause, opinions are changing. The economy doesn't help mothers realize their desires, however. As the article points out, the mothers' views don't reflect the reality.

According to the latest federal figures, 70.5 percent of American women with children younger than 18 work outside the home — including 60 percent of mothers with children younger than 3. And the newly emerging preference for part-time work doesn't mesh with current reality: Three-quarters of the working mothers have full-time jobs.

But, at least there seems to be a growing sense that children cannot raise themselves, and when others raise your kids, you may not like the way they turn out. And maybe, just maybe, there is a new generation of baby boomers' kids who missed having mom at home growing up, and don't want to cause their own children the same regret. And maybe people are starting to accept that men and women don't have to want the same things to lead worthwhile, productive lives.

Monument to Victims of Communism

"We dedicate this memorial because we have an obligation to thosewho died, to acknowledge their lives and honor their memory. The Czech writer Milan Kundera once described the struggle against Communism as "the struggle of memory against forgetting." Communist regimes did more than take their victims' lives; they sought to steal their humanity and erase their memory. With this memorial, we restore their humanity and we reclaim their memory. With this memorial, we say of Communism's innocent and anonymous victims, these men and women lived and they shall not be forgotten." -- George W. Bush, June 12, 2007

Today in Washington, President Bush dedicated a memorial to the victims of communism. Fittingly, today is also the 20th anniversary of one of President Reagan's most famous speeches in which he stood in front of the Berlin Wall and said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The monument is a statue in the style of the one erected in Tienanmen Square in Beijing in 1989. Communist Chinese military units later destroyed it while driving tanks over the assembled peaceful protesters. Hundreds were killed.

Communism doesn't get the same bad rap that other brutal ideologies do. Maybe it's because we fought no great war to end it as we did against the Nazis. Or maybe it's because we never had to face it in our own country as we did slavery.

Anyone sickened by the atrocities of the holocaust (about 6 million Jews killed) should be simply horrified at the destruction wrought by communism. Communist atrocities weren't aimed at only one group of people. they weren't confined to only one country, and they have been occurring for 90 years now. In China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam these atrocities continue. By a conservative estimate the victims of Communism include:

65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million (and counting) in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in communist Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.
In short, communism, an evil ideology unlike any the world has seen, is responsible for the slaughter of more than 94 million human beings. It tops all plagues, natural disasters, crime, and other political ideologies, probably combined. -- Cal Thomas

Other estimates put the total at closer to 150 million.

May they rest in peace.

A Few Good Articles

I read a lot of political philosophy every day. But, rarely do I find a group of articles like this that all seem to mesh together so well. All three speak of the decline of traditional morality and families, and the consequences of that.

First, why Republican presidential candidates should be talking about families more.

Next, what adolescents and intellectuals have in common.

Last, this article really hits the nail on the head. It talks about why people on the "left" find public anger and profanity acceptable. for example, why are there so many "Buck Fush" bumper stickers?

The answer is that parts of the left have little or no belief in the concept of "decency" as traditionally understood by Western civilization. They tend to dismiss such notions as bourgeois anachronisms; they place great value on individuals expressing themselves; and they view self-censorship as a form of fascism.

This latter reason is important: The '60s redefined narcissism as idealism. The individual's feelings became sacrosanct.

That is why the self-esteem movement -- the idea that how an individual feels about himself is far more important than what he actually accomplishes -- arose from the left.

And that is why you almost never hear a conservative say "I am offended" when reacting to a liberal speaker or writer, but it is quite commonplace for a liberal to use those words in reacting to someone from the right.

"Make love not war" was another example of placing one's feelings above other values. That is why it is a very good thing for the world that the previous generation, the one that fought Hitler, didn't believe in making love rather than war.

I told you this blog was random!