Having a Family/Private Education Are Unfair Advantages

Philosopher Adam Swift knows that having a family gives children an advantage.  But lockstep with progressive ideology hellbent on upsetting traditional values, he follows it to its (il)logical conclusion: for the sake of the egalitarian utopia, we should be concerned about reading bedtime stories to our children because it gives them an unfair advantage; furthermore, private education should be abolished.  This is not the Onion, folks.  This is reality.

Read the entire excerpt::

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’   

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’ [So instead of abolishing the family...]

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. [TB: Care to give an argument for that?] So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.

‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’  [TB: Oh, good, seems we're in excellent hands.  Thanks for pulling us back from the ledge of lunacy.  The rational cutoff, according to our family expert, isn't two but nine.]

As I have noted numerous times on this blog, progressives like Swift conflate ("social") justice with fairness as well as equality.  But justice, fairness, and equality are not the same.  Judgments about fairness and equality necessarily involve making comparisons, whereas judgments about justice need not.  I can judge that I have unjustly given you too little money simply by noting that I have given you less than what I promised for the work that you did irrespective of what anyone else has made. You can judge whether I gave you an unjust grade simply by looking at your work and my rubric in the course syllabus irrespective of whether I gave a fair/equal distribution of grades to the entire class (e.g. everyone including you got a "C").  

Instead of fretting about reading bedtime stories to his children, perhaps Swift should consider reading them this Bible story.

Oppression in Baltimore

Scalia's Blunder

Having read numerous opinions and all of his books (even the one on practical advise to lawyers in how to present a case), I have tremendous respect for Antonin Scalia.  However, I have never understood how he came to the conclusion that he did in the religious freedom case over the use of peyote by an American Indian in Employment Division v. Smith.  Perhaps I will never know.  No explanation seems consistent with his general practice.  One might think that as a conservative he would rule against the use of peyote; but anyone who has followed his rulings knows that his judicial philosophy quite often determines a ruling at odds with what a conventional conservative might be thought to prefer.  The case is baffling.

Michael Paulsen, though, explains why it was such a bad decision:

Antonin Scalia is one of the most brilliant, principled, sound, and thoughtful jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. But twenty-five years ago today, his legal skills utterly failed him.

Read his lucid critique here.

Torture and Ticking Time-Bombs

I just finished reading this book.  It is very well researched and well argued.  Allhoff, a utilitarian, argues that torture is morally permissible in extreme circumstances where there is good reason to believe that a terrorist has information which might be valuable in preventing a catastrophe.  He defines torture--helpfully contrasting it with terrorism, canvasses the various arguments for and against torture, spends a reasonable amount of time discussing U.S. legal policies on torture vis-a-vis international law (the Geneva Convention, etc.), discusses practical implementation and public policy issues, and also provides some real life examples of when torture led to information preventing a huge catastrophe.  Not being a utilitarian, I found the weakest part of the book to be his criticisms of in-principle, absolutist objections to torture.  But he does challenge the reader to offer an argument explaining why torture is in-principle never permissible, and I found the in-principle arguments he covers to be far from compelling.

Allhoff also discusses torture in kidnapping situations.  In chapter seven he leaves the reader with the following story:

Height of the [Australian] summer, Mercury at the century-mark; the noonday sun softened the [asphalt] beneath the [tires] of her little Hyundai sedan to the consistency of putty.  Her three year old son, quiet at last, snuffled in his sleep on the back seat.  He had a summer cold and wailed like a banshee in the supermarket, forcing her to cut short her shopping.  Her car needed [gas].  Her tot was asleep on the back seat.  She poured twenty [liters] into the tank; thumbing notes from her purse, harried and distracted, her keys dangled from the ignition.

[While] she was in the service station a man drove off in her car.  Police wound back the [service station's close-captioned television], saw a heavy set Pacific Islander with a blonde-streaked Afro entering her car.  "Don't panic," a Constable advised the mother, "as soon as he sees your little boy in the back he will abandon the car."  He did; police arrived at the railway station before the car thief did and arrested him after a struggle when he vaulted over the station barrier.

In the [patrol car] on the way to the police station: "Where did you leave the [car]?" Denial instead of dissimulation: "It wasn't me."  It was [him]--property stolen from the car was found in his pockets.  In the detectives' office: "[It's] been twenty minutes since you took the car--little tin box like that car--It will heat up like an oven under this sun.  Another twenty minutes and the child's dead or brain damaged.  Where did you dump the car?"  Again: "It wasn't me."

Observations on Detangler Spray

Johno [4 yr. old] seeing detangling spray:

Johno: What is that stuff??

Malea [11 yr. old]: It's detangling spray.

Johno:  What does it do?  Does it make your hair smell nice or what?

Malea: When you spray it on your hair and brush it, you won't have the tangle anymore.

Johno: What is on there?  [That is, what is the picture on the apple-scented bottle?]

Malea:  I think it's an Apple-To-Pus.

Johno: Why is it there?

Malea: I don't know.

Johno: Maybe it's there because it has a tangle. 

The Infertility Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

The Maverick Philosopher explains:

The Infertility Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Suppose two 70-year-olds decide to marry.  They can do so, and their marriage will be recognized as valid under the law.  And this despite the fact that such elderly couples cannot procreate.  But in many places the law does not recognize marriage between same-sex couples who also, obviously, cannot procreate.  What is the difference between the opposite-sex and same-sex cases? What is the difference that justifies a difference in legal recognition?  (Bear in mind that we are discussing legal recognition of marriage; the issue is not so-called civil unions.)  Let us assume that both types of union, the opposite-sex and the same-sex,  are guided by the following norms: monogamy, permanence, and exclusivity.  So, for the space of this discussion, we assume that the infertile heterosexual union and the homosexual union  are both monogamous, permanent, exclusive, and non-procreative. 

What then is the difference between the two cases that justifies a difference in treatment?  If the  only difference is that the one type of union is opposite-sex and the other same-sex, then that is a difference but not one that justifies a difference in treatment.  To say that the one is opposite-sex and the other same-sex is to tell us what we already know; it is not to justify differential treatment.

Here is a relevant difference.  It is biologically impossible that homosexual unions produce offspring.  It is biologically possible, and indeed biologically likely, that heterosexual unions produce offspring.  That is a very deep difference grounded in a biological fact and not in the law or in anything conventional.  This is the underlying fact that both justifies the state's interest in and regulation of marriage, and justifies the state's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

There are two points here and both need to be discussed.

Now Playing: I'm the Ocean

 

 

From Neil Young's Mirrorball

(Friendly to Religion) Atheist KBJ on Denying Dignity in Denying Same-Sex Marriage

Keith Burgess-Jackson:

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Justices’ Opinions Collide on Right to Gay Marriage” (front page, April 29):

In June 2013, a reporter from The New York Times interviewed my partner and me. He asked me how I felt after both the United States v. Windsor decision, invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act, and the overturning of Proposition 8. I responded, “Today is the first day I feel like a real citizen in my country.” The Times made it the Quotation of the Day and included a photo of both my partner, who is now my wife, and me in an article about West Coast same-sex couples.

After hearing the arguments before the Supreme Court, I would like to rescind that quote. Several justices reinforced the notion that I am not a full citizen. Of course, they have all the power. I just have my life, which I try to live with dignity, love and understanding.

KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN

Los Angeles

Note from KBJ: It's sad that this woman's feeling of dignity depends on approval, by the state, of her relationship. What low self-esteem she has! Also, it's absurd to think that, unless she is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, she is being denied the status of "full citizen." Is a pedophile not a full citizen because he or she can't marry a child? Are polygamists not full citizens because they are not allowed to marry one another? I have yet to see, after all this time, a convincing argument (or even a plausible argument) in favor of homosexual "marriage." What I see are tendentious claims, question-begging arguments, abusive epithets ("homophobe"! "bigot"!) and uses of manipulative rhetoric (such as the term "marriage equality"). Everybody has the same legal right: to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody has a right, legally or morally, to participate in an institution that was not designed for him or her.

TB: I would add that in the Supreme Courts' oral arguments, the argument was raised about dignity by those arguing in favor of a Constitutional right to same-sex "marriage."

Perhaps I'll have more to say about this article tomorrow if I get the chance.

Highlights From the Oral Arguments Over Same-Sex "Marriage"

Ryan T. Anderson:

Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court were excellent. There were so many good points made about what marriage is and why redefining marriage would cause harms.

This serious consideration of the harms of marriage redefinition stands in stark contrast to outrageous lower court rulings that had declared no rational basis to state marriage laws defining marriage as it always had been in America: a union of husband and wife.

Most importantly, it was clear that the nine Supreme Court justices do not have any greater insight on ideal marriage policy than do ordinary American citizens. The Constitution itself is silent about it. So the justices should uphold the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make marriage policy in the states.

Here are some of the best portions of Tuesday's arguments.

What Is Marriage?

What I REALLY Believe About Marriage

"I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults."  -Hillary Clinton

Well said.




Hillary, though, no longer agrees with her former self (you can catch that from the tail end of the video below.)  So there appear to be five plausible options for why this might be (I can think of a few others but this will do for now):

1. Hillary previously, secretly believed in gay-marriage but lied about it for political advantage.
2. Hillary has not changed her mind on gay marriage but is currently lying about it for political advantage.
3. Hillary once held that marriage should be between a man and a woman without good reason, and she came to be persuaded by good arguments that same-sex marriage is morally permissible (not to mention naturally possible), moreover, that a right to it is enshrined in the Constitution.
4. Hillary once held that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but she was swept away by the Feelings of the Age and came to believe that same-sex marriage is morally permissible, moreover, that there must be a right to it enshrined in the Constitution.
5. Hillary once held that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but she was swept way by the Feelings of the Age and came to believe that same-sex marriage is morally permissible but she doesn't think there really has been a right to it enshrined in the Constitution for all these years.

If I had to bet I'd opt for 1, 4, or 5.  At any rate, the probability that one of either 1, 4, or 5 are true seems to me far greater than 3.

What is Marriage?

From yesterday's oral arguments before the Supreme Court...

Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, as amicus curiae, arguing that there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the 14th Amendment on behalf of the Obama administration:

JUSTICE ALITO:  What do you think ­­­­ are the essential elements of marriage as it exists today?   

GENERAL VERRILLI:  Well, I think the essential elements of marriage are the ones that are ­­that­­ the, the obligations of mutual support and responsibility and the benefits surrounding marriage that State law provides to ensure that there is an enduring bond, that enduring bond that continues over time and lasts, hopefully, till death do us part, through the end of life.  And that,­­ and with and­,­ and, certainly, childrearing is bound up in that.

It is really difficult to make sense of this definition among all the stuttering (and coughing which didn't make the transcript), but here is a go at it:

Marriage is an enduring bond that continues over time and lasts, hopefully, till death.  And childrearing is (somehow) bound up in that.

So on that definition, if my wife and my brothers' wives were (God-forbid) to die, and we brothers were to choose to rear our children together, and we do so until we die, we would be married.  After all, we have an enduring bond that lasts until death and child-rearing is certainly bound up in that.  Bonus: I don't even have to make a till-death-do-us-part promise of fidelity; but it would be nice (maybe) if the bond continued until death (or maybe not.)

Notice that there is no mention that the bond be between two people.  That's not odd, for why should marriage be between two people rather than three or four (especially if they are sterile and have no children)?  Why hate on polyandrous marriages?  But a little later he summarizes his view of marriage with the following, again in response to Justice Alito:

JUSTICE ALITO:  As far as the, ­ the benefits that Federal law confers on married people, such as in Windsor, the effect on estate taxes, what would be the reason for treating [unmarried siblings who have lived together for 25 years and a same-sex couple who has lived together for 25 years and then gets married due to a change in law] differently?

 GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, ­ I, ­­ I'm not  entirely sure there would be, but, of course, marriage  is something more fundamental than that.  It is an enduring bond between two people.

Ah.  So marriage is an enduring bond between two people.  That is why the unmarried siblings should be treated differently.  [?]
And so I couldn't be married to both of my brothers.  But why couldn't I be married to one of them?  In fact, if I do have an enduring bond then I am married to one of them, it would seem according to this definition--that is, according to Verrilli, the definition of marriage which the Constitution has always recognized implicitly entails that. (Which brother I wonder?) Don't you tell me, hater, that we don't have an enduring bond!

Cue Justice Kennedy's infamously enigmatic statement in Casey v. Planned Parenthood:

At the heart of liberty is to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

There's a Constitutional right to everything imaginable if you just look hard enough.

Initial Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Oral Arguments Today

Today I listened to the oral arguments over whether there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage which has gone undiscovered until this year.  I know that it is difficult to predict the way justices will vote, but simply on the basis of the questions the justices were asking and the softballs they were throwing, it would seem that the vote will come down to Kennedy and my hunch is that he will "discover" a right to gay-marriage in the 14th Amendment.  Of course, anyone who is even a mild originalist would laugh out of the building the claim that there is a right to gay-marriage in the Constitution.  Perhaps Kennedy will come to his senses, but from other decisions, he seems to be a populist with a love of the limelight who wants to be on the "right side of history" with the cool kids.

I plan to say more about the oral argument in the next couple days if I can get around to it. 

Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

From Dawn Stefanowicz

Excerpt:

I am one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents. I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

I am the daughter of a gay father who died of AIDS. I described my experiences in my book: Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting. Over fifty adult children who were raised by LGBT parents have communicated with me and share my concerns about same-sex marriage and parenting. Many of us struggle with our own sexuality and sense of gender because of the influences in our household environments growing up.

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

Canada’s Lessons

Illegal to Work On Your Own Car?

Apparently, Government Motors and other car companies think so.  File this in the truth is stranger than fiction category (while I file it under the "private property" category.)

Jack White: Entitlement

Perhaps Mr. White will write a follow-up song called "Privilege."

[Note: On my interpretation, what follows the "I guess" is plainly ironic; the false reluctance sounded by those words must have been lost on this reviewer.  Once again Socratic irony seems to have done its job.]




"Entitlement"

Every time I'm doing what I want to
Somebody comes and tells me it's wrong
Whenever I'm doing just as I please
Somebody cuts me down to my knees
Yeah, somebody cuts me down to my knees

In a time when everybody feels entitled
Why can't I feel entitled too?
Somebody took away my god given right
I guess God must have gave it to you
Yeah, I guess God must have slipped it to you

Stop what you're doing and get back in line
I hear this from people all the time
If we can't be happy then you can't be too
I'm tired of being told what to do
Yeah, I'm sick of being told what to do

There are children today who were lied to
Told the world is rightfully theirs
They can have what they want, whenever they want
They take like Caesar and nobody cares
Live like Caesar and nobody cares

I can't bring myself to take without penance
Or atonements or sweat from my brow
Though the world may be spoiled and getting worse every day
Don't they feel like they're cheated somehow
I feel like I've been cheated somehow

Stop what you're doing and get back in line
I hear this from people all the time
If we can't be happy then you can't be too
I'm tired of being told what to do
Yeah, I'm sick of being told what to do

I guess nobody on earth is entitled
Not mothers, not children, not kings
Not a one single person on God's golden shore
Is entitled to one single thing
We don't deserve a single damn thing

Krauthammer Interview

Here is a very interesting interview of Democrat-turned-Republican, Charles Krauthammer; if only there were more journalists like Krauthammer.  If only.  He has lived an interesting life.  One of the reasons I respect his opinions is because he has studied political philosophy and economics (in the interview we learn that he was very much influenced by John Stuart Mill), and though confined to a wheelchair for much of his life, he has risen to prominence in journalism--this after being a psychiatrist for numerous years discovering a variant of manic depressive disorder.

Minimum Wage To Kill Theater Jobs

By a 2-1 margin, union members vote against the minimum wage.  Why?  Because they would rather act (many doing so as a hobby on the side) than not.