Apologies for the unexpected absence. I’ll be back blogging in-force this week.
For now, let me leave you with a quick thought. Instapundit last week referenced a New York Times article involving plagarism problems with “managed books” (books where the person listed as author delegated significant portions of the actual writing to research assistants). I don’t know anyone who has anything good to say about “managed care”, unless they are making a profit from it.
Is there any context in which “managed {noun}” connotes something positive? I can’t think of any off of the top of my head. Sticking an obviously positive descriptor in front of managed doesn’t count, e.g. “a well-managed business”. What’s the underlying truth behind the fact that a managed {noun} implies a lower-quality {noun}?
According to Boston resident Dan Flynn, to whom Michelle Malkin links, many residents of that city are still suffering a hangover from their indulgence at the country’s political office party. The slurred speech was not charming, and the promotion was not forthcoming.
Such is the image that comes to mind while perusing the stream of bitter letters to the editor (intraoffice memos, if you will) printed in the Providence Journal. In the latest, Cranston’s Michael Simone inadvertently spurs recollection of the media’s failure in its efforts to overthrow the American regime:
Let’s look at some of the Nov. 20 headlines from The Journal: “Worshipers killed in chaotic raid on mosque”; “Protest erupts in Chile: Bush an unwelcome visitor”; “U.S. charges Iran is racing to make uranium compound”; “6 NATO allies balk at helping U.S. train Iraqi army officers”; “Insurgents threaten nation’s rebuilding, U.S. director says.”
Too true — the relentless stream of bad news for Bush failed to persuade the masses. In fact, its relentlessness became a meme in its own right, hurtling Arthur Chrenkoff to online fame with his “Good News from…” series. In contrast, Bill Carpenter, also of Cranston, believes that deception actually won the day:
It seems the Big Lie has won the battle over truth and common sense for the nation’s loyalty. What further dishonor will the next four years wring from the great deception?
Unfortunately, Mr. Carpenter is referring to the Bush administration, not the likes of (to pick a name at random) Dan Rather. Despite spotlights on phony memos and relatively minor, if tragic or disheartening, stories that might sap the President’s support, as well as the dimmed light with which stories that might hurt John Kerry were approached, Bush’s party increased its share of the government.
One can only presume that the pervasive hatred of Republicans exacerbates apathy and habit to its current degree, at which Fran Brelsford, of Riverside, must actually articulate sage advice for which Rhode Island is dramatic evidence:
Wake up, voters! Being born, living, and dying Democratic does not produce good government. There has to be some balance, to allow a flow of ideas.
Meanwhile Westerly’s Steven Artigas endeavors to explain a principle that may have been missed during snoozes:
Four years after the 2000 election, there is still apparently a sizable contingent of partisans harboring resentment over the outcome. One of the touchstones of this group is the demand that the Electoral College be abolished, in favor of direct elections. If these people were awake during their high-school civics classes, they should recall that the Electoral College serves to increase the clout of those voters who do not live in areas of large population.
In fairness, we should leave open another explanation: no matter how meticulous one’s high school note-taking, it’s difficult to recall civics lessons through a pounding headache.
[Open full post]For some reason, this entire week has felt like a window for breathing. On a national scale, perhaps that has something to do with its being the first holiday after a startlingly contentious election season. On the personal level, for me, it follows a couple of months of big plans, significant breakthroughs, and large steps; the long weekend also stands as a pause before I find out, early next week, just how desperate my financial situation is.
Such is life. Amid all of the worries and confusion, one thing for which we can certainly be thankful is the opportunity to stop, every now and then, and turn our minds to other things, coming back to the difficulties with a fresh perspective.
A special thanks, therefore, is due to those who fight back the madness that would pull our minds from all things greater. I speak of those who articulate sanity, from religious leaders to teachers to writers and thinkers. Of those who root our lives in emotional stability — family and friends. And of those who risk their own lives to beat back the vines of iniquity on our own streets and in foreign lands.
Thank you all. When the time for pause is over, we’ll strive to uphold our own role in the everyday effort of thanking God by making our world worthy of its birth and of the future for which we hope.
Presiden’t Bush’s much vilified No Child Left Behind Act appears to be working, at least that’s the conclusion drawn from reading this story in today’s Providence Journal.
More than half of Rhode Island’s public schools have jumped into the high-performing category, and school leaders across the state say that’s in no small part due to the strict goals set by the federal No Child Left Behind law — and the sanctions schools face if they don’t meet those goals.
Among the schools, 166 are now classified as high fliers, up from 89 last year. Schools also showed marked improvement at the other end of the spectrum: 84 are ranked as in need of improvement, compared with 119 last year.
I previewed these results last week (my first scoop!). What can be taken from this is that challenging teachers and students to meet established and well-defined standards is effective in influencing outcome. Of course there will be complaints, but that is because all of us, to different degrees, resist change. It appears as if the changes endorsed and implemented as a result of the NCLB Act are making things better. Accountability is a good thing after all.
Perhaps we in Rhode Island can take this as an object lesson. We need to realize that our penchant for habitually voting for the same people to the same political offices only sends the message that we accept past transgressions: that everything is fine. No matter how loud we may howl when examples of patronage, payoffs or corruption slap us in the face, change will never occur unless we rid our government of those who enable and contribute to such an atmosphere. Joe E. Democrat, the guy you grew up with, may be a nice guy, but he is beholden to his party leaders and will always toe the line when told. On his own, he may not be a “problem,” but as a part of the larger group, he contributes to the attitude of entitlement held by the ruling political class in the Ocean State. He may be a nice guy, but don’t all enablers appear to “care”? At some point, personal relationships have to be separated from what is good for the state.
The biggest way to create political change is via the ballot box, something we conservatives and advocates for change failed (again) to accomplish a couple of weeks ago. (Though some believe signs of hopefulness are evident.) With the help of Governor Carcieri, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, and (dare I say) AnchorRising.com, the mantra of change will spread and take deeper roots. Maybe the example of the NCLB Act and the determination of teachers, students and parents to do better will spill over into other arenas. Right now, the biggest arena is the coliseum that is Rhode Island Politics. Some of us have entered to face the lions. Will we be mere martyrs or will we survive, led by some Spartacus-like figure (who won’t get killed 😉 to implement lasting change?
[Open full post]The Projo editorial board’s comments on recent healthcare happenings in the state mention a strategy — perhaps a necessity — with much broader application:
We are unmoved by Blue Cross’s complaint that United is “an out-of-state for-profit company.” In all-too-cozy Rhode Island, being out-of-state can be an advantage, avoiding as it does the local cronyism that has characterized such creatures as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island.
And calling Blue Cross a “not-for-profit” merely elicits a bitter chuckle. We immediately think of the conflicts of interest — the most glaring being that Blue Cross Board Chairman Frank Montanaro also heads the state AFL-CIO.
As a conservative advocate (of sorts) in this state, I can confirm that outside help is just about the only hope for real change at a pace measurable in years rather than decades. Fortunately, just as the size of the state helped its problems to develop, it lessens the degree of attention required from wider-world groups. (Of course, for them to care at all, we’ve got to be laboring from within.)
[Open full post]A word on where Andrew and I differ most significantly on the Taricani matter: Andrew believes that one problem that conservatives face when attempting to trim the powers of the judiciary is that they “pick a hot-button issue — gay marriage, flag burning, ‘under god’ in the pledge of allegiance — to advance the cause of placing limits on the power of the judiciary.” In the course of the public debate, the judicial aspect gets lost in the heat of the social issue.
Of course, as one who has written often about the issue of same-sex marriage, I’m predisposed not to want other issues to detract from the fuel that helps the traditional marriage side keep its case moving. Even accounting for that bias, however, I still think social/cultural issues are the ones on which to stand against the judiciary. The central reason, putting aside the difficulty of motivating the public to become concerned at all, is that endemic judicial activism has been most egregious in its imposition of judges’ cultural values. That is where they seem most motivated to cross lines, so that is where the lines must be bolded.
The case of Jim Taricani involves what might be characterized as government theory. Strategically, that means the principles behind the struggle will have to be explained to the public (and the media) in order to give the movement any momentum, and such explanations tend to tip the scales back toward apathy. Furthermore, while hot-button issue may overshadow judicial considerations, more targeted volleys will highlight the specific questions involved, allowing the larger picture to slip away.
In the Taricani/Torres case, those specific questions will be the use of protective orders and, especially, of court-appointed special prosecutors. These are certainly issues worth addressing, but I don’t know that they’re worth expending a great deal of the President’s political capital. More importantly, given my priorities, I’d fear that success would give social activists a rhetorical pin with which to deflate the judicial activism side of the other battles.
…though it may be one different than intended. When I first heard about Alexander I was naturally interested as it was an historical epic and history is, after all, one of my main interests. (Granted, I know how Oliver Stone tends to treat historical fact, but I’m still interested in the film.) Now, the current “controversy” around the film seems to be centered around the very-much historically accurate fact that Alexander the Great had a male lover. However, the controversy may be a smokescreen. It seems as if the writing may not be so good, and that the movie may be so bad that some are trying to use the “controversy” over the homosexual content as an excuse for a potential box-office flop. So why did I bother to bring all of this up? Well, the whole discussion over the homosexuality of Alexander got me thinking about the history of homosexuality.
It is a well-accepted fact to say that Alexander was bisexual and had male lovers throughout his life (as did many Greeks). Homosexuality was considered normal in the Greek culture (as well as many others). That leads to a question: did these male lovers ever marry? Some have sought to find examples of gay marriage as far back as antiquity, though what they have really done, for the most part, is to find something they define as being akin to marriage, which they classify as same-sex union. However, others have claimed to have found examples of the Catholic or Orthodox Church condoning marriage between same-sex couples. These assertions have been criticized as examples of “false history” and an attempt to justify aspects of modern culture by reading their antecedents into the past. Additionally, it is also a fact that many of these particular types of homosexual relationships were examples of pederasty, or a homosexual relationship between a young boy and an older man.
Homosexual relationships also existed in Japan, China, Korea and many Islamic cultures, as well as the Sambia of Papau New Guinea. Not only did such relationships fulfill the desires of the two participants, they seem to have been considered a step on the way to manhood, at which time a man took a wife and had a family. This itself implies that the expected role for a mature male was that of a father and husband married to a woman. (With this in mind, there has been scholarly argument over the “social construction of homosexuality” and whether pederasty and homosexuality are necessarily the same thing).
Homosexuals have been fighting for widespread social acceptance throughout history. By the 1970’s, they were redefining their goal from that of mere social acceptance of their own self to social acceptance of their “lifestyle” choice. (From “love the sinner, hate the sin” to “love the sinner, accept the sin,” if you will). With these arguments now essentially won (for the most part) homosexuals are now devoting their energy to social acceptance of their relationships. However, they don’t seek just legal acceptance, rather, they seek to redefine an institution. (Note: Justin has written extensively on the gay marriage debate).
In all of the historical examples of homosexuality and gay marriage (or its approximation) cited by proponents, a careful reading reveals one component missing: there is never a mention made of children. It is widely accepted, though largely understated, that children need parents of both sexes to provide a basic solid social groundwork. To some of us, this seems like common sense. Yes, there is divorce, loveless marriages, single mothers, successful gay or lesbian parents, etc., but a family with a father and a mother has been shown throughout history to be the best and most basic social construct for proper child development. Marriage is more than a bond between two indivuals, it is also society’s way of providing the best environment for child-rearing. Just because some do not aspire to the ideal does not render the ideal obsolete. I hope that we don’t let the exceptions make the rules.
ADDENDUM: There are other arguments to be made against gay marriage. (For example, I attempted, somewhat poorly, to provide a “rational” argument for the alternative of civil unions, here. Much of what I said then I still believe, but I think the more convincing argument centers around the raising of children, as mentioned above.)
[Open full post]I have question about a “detail” in the Jim Taricani case that I have yet to see explained. Perhaps one of my fellow contributors or one of Anchor Rising’s readers can help me with this…
Did Taricani voluntarily waive his right to a trial-by-jury in this matter, and if so, why?
Brown professor Anne Fausto-Sterling, recent Massachusetts-made spouse of Brown professor Paula Vogel, skirts the heart of the same-sex marriage debate (coming to a small coastal state near you) in a Providence Journal column today. Interspersed with a description of exactly the sort of ceremony that one would expect from New England radicals, Fausto-Sterling offers points of rhetoric that adeptly slip right past any arguable point so as to return to emotionalist tugs that are ultimately irrelevant:
Many argue that marriage is about family, parents, children, and generational continuity. I agree. And here, too, I cannot fathom how hetero- and homosexual unions differ.
It might be enough for many (maybe most) of those with a conservative bent that Fausto-Sterling “cannot fathom how hetero- and homosexual unions differ.” But simply shrugging such statements off without rebuttal allows the mantra to do its work among citizens who, especially in this region, want to be tolerant, but who wish this uncomfortable issue would just go away. The biology and gender studies professor goes on:
Not all marriages of either sort have children — sometimes by choice, sometimes because the bodies are unwilling.
I cannot fathom how a highly educated woman so casually equates “marriages of either sort” under such an inapt euphemism as “unwilling bodies.” On one side of the orientational divide are couples biologically constructed so as to have children, often without even trying, with the vast majority of the married among them procreating at some point in their lives. On the other side are couples biologically incapable of doing the same and aware of that inability from the moment their eyes first meet.
Moving on from that dubious elision, Fausto-Sterling opens her rhetorical umbrella so wide as to argue for same-sex marriage on the basis of benefits that marriage of any sort is not needed to provide:
But married couples, with or without children of their own, serve important roles for children — as aunts and uncles, as godparents, as teachers and confidants.
As should be immediately obvious even to those outside the ivied walls, couples can serve such roles with or without being married — with or without being couples! Indeed, when Fausto-Sterling poses her closing rhetorical questions, readers might wonder why it is she believes we need institutional recognition of marriage at all:
How could it be that these ceremonies that stabilize us, that strengthen communities, that support children, that offer social and economic supports, especially in old age and in times of illness, benefit couple and society when two-sex couples engage in them, but not when same-sex couples do?
It isn’t the ceremony that makes the marriage; marriages can be had with a minimum of frills, after all. Furthermore, nobody, to my knowledge, is arguing that ceremonies of any sort oughtn’t be allowed. The question that Fausto-Sterling is apparently ideologically disinclined to address beyond a dismissive “no” is whether the nature of same-sex couples calls for differences in the way in which our public institutions handle them. Perhaps it would be beneficial for our society to find some way to encourage commitment and stability among homosexuals, but that does not mean that it can or should be the same as our encouragement of men and women to marry each other.
How can the good things that marriage brings to same-sex couples subtract from the worth of marriage between couples of different sexes?
By allocating benefits and extending definitions meant to create a social expectation to a relationship that is fundamentally a matter of choice (because it cannot create vulnerable dependents), and by blurring a necessarily simple and concrete social construct, both inherently and through the threat of further change.
I ask those opposed to marriage for lesbians and gay men: Which of the pledges we made during our marriage harm you?
To this final question I give the implied answer, but without the implied conclusion: Absolutely none, and that is why such pledges oughtn’t be stripped of whatever meaning their takers invest in them. Fausto-Sterling’s view of society, however — in which direct harm to another is the only barrier to defining culture for one’s self — is antithetical to the purpose of marriage.
Marriage is meant to unite couples even when they aren’t inclined to make pledges. It is meant to define a culture in which two people who have the ability to be responsible for the creation of new life will handle that new life responsibly, binding themselves to each other on that basis, even if not entirely for that reason.
In other words, appeals to the emotions and tolerance of good-hearted people aside, marriage isn’t about the pledges and ceremonies of autumn-aged elite white women after fifteen years as a couple.
