Communist Absurdity

The communist Chinese government has decreed that Buddhist monks cannot reincarnate without government permission. They have even set up a procedure monks must follow.

In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."

This is consistent with the communist view of religion as "the opiate of the masses." Communists really believe that people are dumb enough to follow whatever procedure they concoct to stamp the spiritual out of life. Either that, or the PRC finally concluded "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," gave up trying to secularize Tibet and decided to become experts in reincarnation

This is, of course, all a ploy to weaken the influence of the Dalai Lama who has been an opponent of the Communist takeover of Tibet since the 1950s. Communists consistently underestimate the power of deeply held beliefs. Communism cannot replace religion because it doesn't have the power to truly change a human heart. There never have been any truly converted Communists. (Even Stalin was seen praying in church as the German army closed in on Moscow). Communism is just a vehicle to gain power. Its tenets cannot answer the basic questions of life in any remotely satisfying way -

"Where did I come from?" - Religion answers this "from God," Communism answers "Nowhere, but now you're here, you must serve the state."

"What is the purpose of life?" - Religion answers (LDS) "men are that they might have joy." Communism: "You are here to serve the state."

"What happens when I die?" - Religions have many answers to this (reincarnation, exhaltation, Nirvana) all more appealing than communism's offering "you stop serving the state and cease to exist." (P.S. if you fall out of favor, we'll help you cease to exist sooner, then deny you were ever born.)

And people wonder why I don't like trial law . . .

A man in West Virginia is suing McDonald's for $10 million over a drive-thru order mistake. He's allergic to cheese and mistakenly got a cheeseburger. He didn't bother to check the burger before he bit into it. His mother is also suing for reckless endangerment for having to drive him to the hospital.

A woman in Michigan is suing the makers of Starburst candies because they don't warn consumers about the dangers of the candies being "too chewy." Her lawyer just wants to make sure others avoid this danger.

A New Jersey man is suing Starbucks because his tea was too hot and the Starbucks employee didn't put the lid on right. His wife is also suing for losses due to his injury.

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.