"That’s part of why they are such a horrid idea; they exist precisely and only to create an underclass of marriages."
If Civil Unions were open to straights as well as gays, I'm not sure that at the end of the day they would be the ones considered second class. It's just as likely that marriage would be the institution for boring Christians hung up on sex, while Civil Unions would be for everyone else. When given choices, traditional marriage suffers.
"The fetus is not presumed to have any rights, because it is not considered a citizen."
As I'm sure Mark will tell you. This is exactly the problem that Dred Scott addressed: could one State create citizens unilaterally that would have claim on other States? Should the Constitution be considered a contract. And, if it is, can one party fundamentally change the scope and meaning of the contract without the concent of the other party.
Mike: I'm not really sure why those options weren't available. I didn't really pry when she was telling me about it. I just wanted to crawl into a hole.
I had a mom friend that ended up carrying a dead fetus in her womb for two months because no one was trained in the procedure. I have no sympathy for people who all of a sudden find themselves in ethical conflict with their chosen careers. I think you're a bit dismissive and ahistoric concerning Dred Scott. Unless were going to revisit Federalism in a real way, the Left should have it's turn for punitive legislation. Trying to argue otherwise after the last administration seems like the bad guy in the movies begging for leniency..... "don't hurt me!"
Jim: what if the husband, that wanted a child that would be aborted otherwise, be allowed to have the fetus by as non invasive a surgical procedure as possible and raise it as he sees fit with no rights being maintained by the woman?
Arguably, our agricultural policies cause many children's' deaths across the globe. Our domestic policies leave the mentally ill to die on the streets. Countless old people die because our health system fails to pay for their life extension. All of these things may or may not be optimal, but simply because a situation is unfortunate, I fail to find that there is a moral imperative to help. Withdrawing or withholding support that leads to death is very different than killing.
"Let’s rephrase that then: should we as a society not try to stop things we perceive as wrong?"
Not if the cure is worse than the disease. Not if you don't want someone else to get a turn about your behavior. Not if it creates political entities and processes that can't be controlled or dismantled if they don't function as advertised.
"The problem for you is that the GOP will not represent the conservatism of which you speak for a very long time, if ever again, so I wouldn’t hold your breath."
Death Penalty: I don't trust the system enough to let them have control over life and death. There have been too many exonerated death row prisoners to conscionably allow for the death penalty.
Assisted Suicide: This is a scary one. I think individuals have the right to end their own lives. I believe a loved one should be allowed to partake in the process. I'm highly skeptical of how this could turn out with organ donation, exhaustion of the patients care network etcetera. It needs to have lots of checks and the system needs to be maintained so that legal considerations remain on the side of the patient.
Unnecessary War:
I'm obviously a big fan of federalism. I think the military should shrink drastically with the empire coming to an end. I'd favor doing more with State Guards than national. I often think of 1812 and the refusal by militias to take part in the invasion of Canada as a good example of the limiting effect of diversified military. I really only want everyone to come together when there is a real existential crisis.
Abortion: My main problem is I don't think human life is inherently sacred on some mystical level. We let people die all the time. Instead of fighting abortion, I'd suggest those that care (especially about late term abortions) work on developing science so that extreme preemies can survive. Simply birth the child early. If you can get it down so that you can have success with first trimester fetus's more power to you. The reams of fertilized eggs will be an issue and at some point some body is going to have to pay for it all.
“If we ask somebody to give up the ghost entirely and build something completely different, dollars to donuts they will re-create some of the same problems, basic institutions, and the like. Whether it’s governments or religious groupings. ”
Are we at the end of history then? Should we not bother to improve what we have or develop other models? Is democracy so like the aristocracy that went before that it's been a futile endeavor? That doesn't seem right. Social groupings can only stay as static as the environment in which they're grown. Inherent weakness in human societies may be unavoidable. That doesn't make the project less necessary.
In the taxology here, we have the mythic religions undercutting the magical ones. Why shouldn't we expect that the next iteration, in this case some form of "new atheism" would be equally cut throat in its suppression of the previous order. If such actions don't deligitimize mythic religions why should we complain about the atheists, deists, or any number of folk that are rejecting the previous model? Isn't the prediction of the eventual overthrow of the mythic inherent in the overall model?
It is a messy subject. I have my thoughts but they need a bit more refinement. I hope you eventually get a post out on this, if for nothing else to help sharpen my own thoughts.
Chris: "Again I think of the idea of national citizenship. Do moderate citizens give cover to extremists within a nation who commit evil acts?"
I'd be willing to bet that Collin Powell would give anything to have a do-over.
Collective guilt is what we're talking about here. And it has it's problems. However, I can't see how nations can be held morally accountable if their people never are. Of course, we have Germany as an example. When I was younger, travelling Europe, I was amazed at how many people still held animosity toward Germans, especially of "that generation".
Institutions have a responsibility to police themselves. That means the moderates keeping the crazies in line or disowning them in the strongest terms. If they fail to do this, they are as guilty as the offending members. Not for what the yahoos do, but for not keeping their house in order.
"Should we go on a crusade to make Americans renounce their citizenship say if they disagree with the Iraq/Afghanistan War? Or should they stay and try to work to change it? "
Don't even get me started.
Chris: this description doesn't resemble my experience. We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You seem to be speaking about the degradations of drug addiction. But must spiritual exploration and seeking through drugs turn into a scene from the Downtown East Side? It's not my cup of tea, but what about the shamanistic traditions?
What about sacred sexuality? Certainly the Mysteries involve that as well. Many of us, regardless of one's own tradition, will be aware of the potential for transcendence during sex. Like other spiritual practices you may be more familiar with, sacred sexuality may be a means through which a person may experience ecstasy - an encounter with the divine, both immanent and transcendent. What a person does after such a mystical experience is up to them, and the truth-content of the experience.
"I have met people from whom sex or drugs or money are in fact their ultimate concern."
But if they are yet another means to the end? A liturgy in an earlier religion or a spiritual practice? Are the Dionysian Mysteries so easily discarded?
"The latter people are the ones who give me pause."
This just takes it back one step. What do you make of a Born again next to a Hindu that both are changing their lives? What conclusion should we take from the variety of sources of this behavior?
"Funny that people grant so much success to two wars that have cost so much blood and treasure when the real gains made against terrorism have been carried out by international intelligence and financial operations."
Good point E.D. It kind of echos the intelligence gained the old fashioned way vs. the water board.
The puzzle remains though. Could it be that the extremists are also losing the media battle? How do car bombs and market slaughters affect the ability to recruit in Westernized countries? Has the insurgency lost its romantic veneer for all sides involved?
"No, I think Douthat’s perspective is that the liberal arts should be more rigorous."
I'm sure it depends on the institution. I don't think of Harvard undergrad as a rigorous program. I doubt that Friedersdorf has complaints about Pomona. Big name research schools are what they are.
"One thing the founders did NOT envision was a voluntarily self-limiting Executive."
Nor do I think they envisioned a voluntarily self-limiting Federal Government. Separation of powers (the three branches) isn't sufficient. The legislative and judicial can check the executive but they can't check the Federal government. They are the federal government and are as likely to diminish the power as a whole as they are to diminish their little corner of it. The only check on Federal Government is the division of powers (State or individual vs Federal).
"With a district level curriculum you pretty much ensure kids are rarely exposed to anything outside of that district and that includes cultural institutions as well as kids in other places."
Sorry to get lost so early. How does local decision on curriculum isolate oneself (without localvorism)? It would seem just as likely that we would get a USdayToday mish mash that would eliminate plenty of cultural institutions (if what you're meaning is museums and not churches and the like). Wouldn't an open market support more not fewer institutions?
Would having a globally agreed upon curriculum broaden our views? Would it be the best way to educate our young?
No thanks. With a shared curriculum already spelled out, any interesting collaboration is lost. I'll take competition over an administrative group project.
No child left behind is bad enough. It's just as likely that I.D. would get into the national curriculum. At the very least you'd have to compromise between the meritocratic areas and the anti-intellectual. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
"That’s where a national curriculum would be a very good thing."
Wow, I'm surprised by the national scope. Why would national standards be better than state or local?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “At last”
"That’s part of why they are such a horrid idea; they exist precisely and only to create an underclass of marriages."
If Civil Unions were open to straights as well as gays, I'm not sure that at the end of the day they would be the ones considered second class. It's just as likely that marriage would be the institution for boring Christians hung up on sex, while Civil Unions would be for everyone else. When given choices, traditional marriage suffers.
On “Ah, Abortion”
"My wacky idea of “Individual Rights” entails such things as “Rights exist independently of whether the cultures acknowledge them”.
Yup, that's wacky. I tend to think of it as a linguistic bi-product, so I don't know if I'm any better off.
"
"The fetus is not presumed to have any rights, because it is not considered a citizen."
As I'm sure Mark will tell you. This is exactly the problem that Dred Scott addressed: could one State create citizens unilaterally that would have claim on other States? Should the Constitution be considered a contract. And, if it is, can one party fundamentally change the scope and meaning of the contract without the concent of the other party.
On “Doubling Down”
Mike: I'm not really sure why those options weren't available. I didn't really pry when she was telling me about it. I just wanted to crawl into a hole.
"
I had a mom friend that ended up carrying a dead fetus in her womb for two months because no one was trained in the procedure. I have no sympathy for people who all of a sudden find themselves in ethical conflict with their chosen careers. I think you're a bit dismissive and ahistoric concerning Dred Scott. Unless were going to revisit Federalism in a real way, the Left should have it's turn for punitive legislation. Trying to argue otherwise after the last administration seems like the bad guy in the movies begging for leniency..... "don't hurt me!"
On “George Tiller”
Jim: what if the husband, that wanted a child that would be aborted otherwise, be allowed to have the fetus by as non invasive a surgical procedure as possible and raise it as he sees fit with no rights being maintained by the woman?
On “continuity and the culture of death”
Arguably, our agricultural policies cause many children's' deaths across the globe. Our domestic policies leave the mentally ill to die on the streets. Countless old people die because our health system fails to pay for their life extension. All of these things may or may not be optimal, but simply because a situation is unfortunate, I fail to find that there is a moral imperative to help. Withdrawing or withholding support that leads to death is very different than killing.
"
"Let’s rephrase that then: should we as a society not try to stop things we perceive as wrong?"
Not if the cure is worse than the disease. Not if you don't want someone else to get a turn about your behavior. Not if it creates political entities and processes that can't be controlled or dismantled if they don't function as advertised.
On “Stop the attacks?”
" it’s still better than what could have been."
Ain't that the truth. Not enough for me, but absolutely true.
"
"The problem for you is that the GOP will not represent the conservatism of which you speak for a very long time, if ever again, so I wouldn’t hold your breath."
So, how's Obama working out for you?
On “continuity and the culture of death”
Death Penalty: I don't trust the system enough to let them have control over life and death. There have been too many exonerated death row prisoners to conscionably allow for the death penalty.
Assisted Suicide: This is a scary one. I think individuals have the right to end their own lives. I believe a loved one should be allowed to partake in the process. I'm highly skeptical of how this could turn out with organ donation, exhaustion of the patients care network etcetera. It needs to have lots of checks and the system needs to be maintained so that legal considerations remain on the side of the patient.
Unnecessary War:
I'm obviously a big fan of federalism. I think the military should shrink drastically with the empire coming to an end. I'd favor doing more with State Guards than national. I often think of 1812 and the refusal by militias to take part in the invasion of Canada as a good example of the limiting effect of diversified military. I really only want everyone to come together when there is a real existential crisis.
Abortion: My main problem is I don't think human life is inherently sacred on some mystical level. We let people die all the time. Instead of fighting abortion, I'd suggest those that care (especially about late term abortions) work on developing science so that extreme preemies can survive. Simply birth the child early. If you can get it down so that you can have success with first trimester fetus's more power to you. The reams of fertilized eggs will be an issue and at some point some body is going to have to pay for it all.
On “atheist mythos (not “the myth of atheism”)”
“If we ask somebody to give up the ghost entirely and build something completely different, dollars to donuts they will re-create some of the same problems, basic institutions, and the like. Whether it’s governments or religious groupings. ”
Are we at the end of history then? Should we not bother to improve what we have or develop other models? Is democracy so like the aristocracy that went before that it's been a futile endeavor? That doesn't seem right. Social groupings can only stay as static as the environment in which they're grown. Inherent weakness in human societies may be unavoidable. That doesn't make the project less necessary.
In the taxology here, we have the mythic religions undercutting the magical ones. Why shouldn't we expect that the next iteration, in this case some form of "new atheism" would be equally cut throat in its suppression of the previous order. If such actions don't deligitimize mythic religions why should we complain about the atheists, deists, or any number of folk that are rejecting the previous model? Isn't the prediction of the eventual overthrow of the mythic inherent in the overall model?
On “Comment of the Day”
It is a messy subject. I have my thoughts but they need a bit more refinement. I hope you eventually get a post out on this, if for nothing else to help sharpen my own thoughts.
"
"Not becoming 6.) may just provide the requisite nudge to ensure the post does indeed get written."
Calling Mr. Thompson. How 'bout that post on the 14th.
On “atheist mythos (not “the myth of atheism”)”
Chris: "Again I think of the idea of national citizenship. Do moderate citizens give cover to extremists within a nation who commit evil acts?"
I'd be willing to bet that Collin Powell would give anything to have a do-over.
Collective guilt is what we're talking about here. And it has it's problems. However, I can't see how nations can be held morally accountable if their people never are. Of course, we have Germany as an example. When I was younger, travelling Europe, I was amazed at how many people still held animosity toward Germans, especially of "that generation".
Institutions have a responsibility to police themselves. That means the moderates keeping the crazies in line or disowning them in the strongest terms. If they fail to do this, they are as guilty as the offending members. Not for what the yahoos do, but for not keeping their house in order.
"Should we go on a crusade to make Americans renounce their citizenship say if they disagree with the Iraq/Afghanistan War? Or should they stay and try to work to change it? "
Don't even get me started.
On “Yesterday”
Katherine: Canada also has a lot of other trappings and cultural institutions that make this possible. I always make sure I get a poppy.
This Memorial Day, I contemplated the loss of State militias and America's relationship with its own military.
On “The Guilt By Religious Association Canard”
Chris: this description doesn't resemble my experience. We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You seem to be speaking about the degradations of drug addiction. But must spiritual exploration and seeking through drugs turn into a scene from the Downtown East Side? It's not my cup of tea, but what about the shamanistic traditions?
What about sacred sexuality? Certainly the Mysteries involve that as well. Many of us, regardless of one's own tradition, will be aware of the potential for transcendence during sex. Like other spiritual practices you may be more familiar with, sacred sexuality may be a means through which a person may experience ecstasy - an encounter with the divine, both immanent and transcendent. What a person does after such a mystical experience is up to them, and the truth-content of the experience.
"
"I have met people from whom sex or drugs or money are in fact their ultimate concern."
But if they are yet another means to the end? A liturgy in an earlier religion or a spiritual practice? Are the Dionysian Mysteries so easily discarded?
"
"The latter people are the ones who give me pause."
This just takes it back one step. What do you make of a Born again next to a Hindu that both are changing their lives? What conclusion should we take from the variety of sources of this behavior?
On “Where We Fight”
"Funny that people grant so much success to two wars that have cost so much blood and treasure when the real gains made against terrorism have been carried out by international intelligence and financial operations."
Good point E.D. It kind of echos the intelligence gained the old fashioned way vs. the water board.
The puzzle remains though. Could it be that the extremists are also losing the media battle? How do car bombs and market slaughters affect the ability to recruit in Westernized countries? Has the insurgency lost its romantic veneer for all sides involved?
On “Corrugated Degree Factories”
"No, I think Douthat’s perspective is that the liberal arts should be more rigorous."
I'm sure it depends on the institution. I don't think of Harvard undergrad as a rigorous program. I doubt that Friedersdorf has complaints about Pomona. Big name research schools are what they are.
On “the imperial presidency (again)”
"One thing the founders did NOT envision was a voluntarily self-limiting Executive."
Nor do I think they envisioned a voluntarily self-limiting Federal Government. Separation of powers (the three branches) isn't sufficient. The legislative and judicial can check the executive but they can't check the Federal government. They are the federal government and are as likely to diminish the power as a whole as they are to diminish their little corner of it. The only check on Federal Government is the division of powers (State or individual vs Federal).
On “teaching and choice”
"With a district level curriculum you pretty much ensure kids are rarely exposed to anything outside of that district and that includes cultural institutions as well as kids in other places."
Sorry to get lost so early. How does local decision on curriculum isolate oneself (without localvorism)? It would seem just as likely that we would get a USdayToday mish mash that would eliminate plenty of cultural institutions (if what you're meaning is museums and not churches and the like). Wouldn't an open market support more not fewer institutions?
Would having a globally agreed upon curriculum broaden our views? Would it be the best way to educate our young?
"
Mike:
No thanks. With a shared curriculum already spelled out, any interesting collaboration is lost. I'll take competition over an administrative group project.
No child left behind is bad enough. It's just as likely that I.D. would get into the national curriculum. At the very least you'd have to compromise between the meritocratic areas and the anti-intellectual. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
"
"That’s where a national curriculum would be a very good thing."
Wow, I'm surprised by the national scope. Why would national standards be better than state or local?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.