Kirby and I got into a brief discussion of the Battle Hymn of the Republic in the comments to American Civil Religion. A big part of that brief discussion was the bowdlerization of the hymn that has taken place over the century and a half since it was written.
While I still find the Hymn to be beautiful and moving, I've come to see it also as a seductive and dangerous piece of propaganda, which intentionally interleaves Christianity with the American Civil Religion, using the former to legitimize the later, and to encourage its listeners to confuse the two. I'd like to take apart one little piece of the Hymn, which I think is a key to understanding.
The original fifth verse of the Hymn was:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on.
The fourth line of that verse (italicized) is often rendered these days as “... let us live to make men free.” Kirby and I both commented on this—both of us preferring the original. I said that the original “explicitly acknowledged the sacrifices the troops were expected to make,” while Kirby described it as “sadder.” We're both right, but I think we both missed the point that makes the original so potent, and so dangerous.
Consider the full phrase, “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” This explicitly sets up an equivalence between Christ's death on the cross, and death on the battlefield, and in particular, between Christ's redemptive or sanctifying death (i.e., a death that frees men from sin, and thereby makes them holy), and the Union soldier, whose purposeful death on the battlefield might hasten the abolition of slavery. Stated more bluntly, the equivalence claimed is between the formative event of Christianity (real religion), and what an individual might hope to achieve on behalf of the state (i.e., within the ersatz civil religion).
I think it is worthwhile to turn to Drew Gilpin Faust's brilliant “This Republic of Suffering,” which analyzes how dying and death were experienced within, and changed by, the Civil War. Soldiers in the Civil War expected to die. Whether Union or Confederate, they felt their cause was just, and that it was worthwhile for them to sacrifice their life to advance that cause. But soldiers also knew that there were many forms that death could take, most of which were not purposeful in the sense of advancing their cause, e.g., deaths by disease, which were approximately twice as likely as deaths due to combat.
Shocking as it may seem to our ears, the phrase “let us die to make men free” expresses a hope, which is rational if the alternative is a purposeless death. Moreover, and this is where I think the Hymn becomes most intensely problematic, the parallels that are set up imply that death in combat is not merely purposeful, but redemptive if the cause is just, and indeed redemptive specifically for the individual who makes that sacrifice. In other words, the Hymn argues that an individual might gain eternal salvation by sacrificing their life on behalf of political goals of the state. You might ask, “Where does the Hymn mention individual salvation?” It doesn't need to, because it set up exactly the parallels that will cause its listeners to recall this:
Matthew 16:25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
This is how a religion of non-violence gets twisted to justify violent action on the part of its believers.
So, who cares? Lutheran's would say, “we are justified by faith through grace,” and therefore would seem to be immune to the theological overreaching of the hymn. If we're not saved by works, we're certainly not saved by our own death. Certainly, these days, no one would buy into such propaganda, and it was in a good cause anyway. Right?
9/11
Peace
50 comments:
Stu,
you can't have a discussion of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" without mentioning that it began at least part of its life as "John Brown's Body"
John Brown, of course, being a terrorist and murderer.
Also it's worth noting that the song mentions the soul of Time being a slave to God.
I think what is evident, however, is the name of the poem that became a song --
It's neither the battle hymn of God nor the battle hymn of Christ.
It's the battle hymn of the Republic.
This is not a hymn of Christianity. This is a hymn, as you say Stu, of "American Civil Religion."
American Civil Religion grew out of Protestantism -- especially Calvinism and Unitarianism. It reached a heyday of sorts in the 1910s -- but continued to grow while shedding its theistic trappings.
It's now presented in many guises -- multiculturalism, environmentalism, essentially the whole of the Left (to which nearly all of America -- and the world -- belongs).
It is a religion without God -- a religion without Jesus.
You can see the beginnings in the Battle Hymn.
You can see the results today in cities like Detroit and Baghdad.
"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" without mentioning that it began at least part of its life as "John Brown's Body"
Two comments on this. (1) According to the linked wiki article, the famous John Brown is not the subject of John Brown's Body, although Julia Ward Howe interpreted it that way. (2) I believe that the message of the BHR is carried by the lyrics -- the music is certainly catchy, but irrelevant to the argument I'm making.
John Brown, of course, being a terrorist and murderer.
Indeed. With what he thought of as a righteous cause, ordained by God. My take on this is that he had a righteous cause, but acted in a deeply sinful way. He's not the last.
Also it's worth noting that the song mentions the soul of Time being a slave to God.
There's a lot in the hymn worth noting. But this was a blog posting, not a dissertation :-).
It's neither the battle hymn of God nor the battle hymn of Christ.
It's the battle hymn of the Republic.
My point exactly. It tries to justify governmental ends by manipulating religious belief, and therefore serves the Republic, not God or Christ, nor even man.
American Civil Religion grew out of Protestantism -- especially Calvinism and Unitarianism. It reached a heyday of sorts in the 1910s -- but continued to grow while shedding its theistic trappings.
I agree with this.
It's now presented in many guises -- multiculturalism, environmentalism, essentially the whole of the Left (to which nearly all of America -- and the world -- belongs).
I disagree with this, vehemently. The left may occasionally cloak its agenda in logos language (i.e., the notion that there are a priori notions of justice), but seldom (at least, since the civil rights movement) in explicitly religious language. If you want that, look to the unholy (and I mean that literally) alliance between evangelicals and the Republican party.
You can see the results today in cities like Detroit and Baghdad.
Detroit's a city I know well enough -- I grew up in a suburb, and my house was less than a block from the city limits. The problems of Detroit have much more to do with arrogance and stupidity on the part of GM, Chrysler, and Ford, than any of the issues here. You can throw in the UAW if you like, but my opinion is that the refusal of management to show the books during negotiations is partially exonerating. Oh, and the lack of a decent national heath care plan, as compared with international competition. We blew it on national infrastructure.
As for Baghdad, it's current state is largely a consequence of our having bombed it, and then not having planned at all for post-war security. Our republic has its origins in guerilla warfare, you'd think we'd not be surprised to have the tables turned. And indeed, these errors were made by people who were absolutely certain that their faith meant that God himself informed and directed their decision-making process, and therefore they had no obligation to inform themselves. These are--at present, anyway--sins of the right, not left.
A very complex and difficult discussion to enter, even though it has barely started.
In this instance, I do not know enough about John Brown to decide whether he is a murderer like the man who shot George Tiller, or shot the guard at the Jewish museum.
I sympathize with Brown.
I see him as more like Bonhoeffer in his (illegal) attempt to assassinate Hitler.
It's a continuum, but I will put Brown into at least what I consider a hands-down good cause. I see no reason at all to say that slavery was anything other than an evil institution.
Put me on the side of human rights.
We've brought THOSE to Baghdad, and now the Iranians want them, too.
Bush wanted to kickstart a domino effect in which the Islamic women would want rights. Nada died for this last week.
I think we should respect it.
All the world wants human rights. Bush had a very good record in this. Obama is ambiguous, and will leave an ambiguous record. He always waits to see which way the wind is blowing before he tacks one way or the other.
Very pragmatic man.
Bush is an idealist. Brown was an idealist.
The men who shot Tiller and the security guard were probably idealists, too, but their ideals are less clear, at least on my scorecard.
I don't think it's possible to be good, and to be a soldier at the same time. We are never wholly good. That's not possible in Lutheran terms. However, we can stand up for the rights of others.
This is what Bush did when he attacked Baghdad. He may have also had a personal vendetta with Hussein. But his overriding concern was with human rights. It always was. All the major human rights organizations realize this about him.
The left will never give him any respect. They just think of him as a dog with rabies, as they now think of Sarah Palin.
But both of these figures deserve enormous respect. They aren't just sailing into the wind. They are very brave people who tried to chart a new direction for America, to realign the government with what the government should be doing on Christian terms.
Iraq has gone from a totally unfree country to a partially free country. They have a press, they have a constitution that allows for plurality and for women to vote.
The entire Islamic world is going to follow.
It's a mark of genius on Bush's part.
Lincoln's war cost about a million American lives.
Bush's cost only about 8 thousand. And with it, he has probably saved the world. The man was the greatest genius of human freedom since Lincoln, but he was far more strategic, and effective, in much more difficult areas of the world, and he didn't even lose his life in the process.
George W. Bush is the world's greatest living man.
I disagree with this, vehemently. The left may occasionally cloak its agenda in logos language (i.e., the notion that there are a priori notions of justice), but seldom (at least, since the civil rights movement) in explicitly religious language. If you want that, look to the unholy (and I mean that literally) alliance between evangelicals and the Republican party.
All of the arguments for Progressivism are cloaked in religious language and faith.
Its pronouncements mirror the justifications of the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages.
Note -- I include Republicans in the Left -- they are simply aping the Leftists of 30-50 years ago.
Put me on the side of human rights.
And put me on the side of human life -- especially as Jesus talked a lot about our lives here and our lives in the Kingdom of Heaven -- and didn't talk at all about "rights" -- which are all false anyway.
I see him as more like Bonhoeffer in his (illegal) attempt to assassinate Hitler.
More like Hitler than Bonhoeffer, in means; somewhere in the middle, in ends.
The goal of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was to steal weapons with which to arm slaves, in order to ignite a slave revolt. Had such a revolt taken place, the slave holders, their families, and anyone else who got in the way would have been murdered. It would have been extremely ugly, which explains (but hardly justifies) the violence that the slave owners used whenever there was the slightest hint of a slave revolt.
In terms of ends, he was an abolitionist (a good end), who harbored a murderous rage against the slave holders (an evil end), in roughly equal measure.
If you want meaningful definitions of murder and terrorist, you do not want to apply end-tests to legitimize some and not others. John Brown was undoubtedly both a murderer and a terrorist.
We've brought THOSE to Baghdad, and now the Iranians want them, too.
It will be a surprise to the Iraqi's that we've brought anything that resembles human rights. Unless dying is a right.
The Iranians wanted them all along. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran, because they nationalized the oil industry. I.e., we did it for money, during the Eisenhower administration. And we re-imposed a monarch, the Shah. When the Shah weakened, they overthrew his government. Because the Islamic clerics had been consistently opposed to the Shah, they were given unusual powers in the resulting government. But hey, you guys like theocracies, so that's shouldn't be a problem for you.
The current protests have their origin in obvious election rigging by Ahmadinejad, and have nothing to do with US incursions in Iraq. Iranians will not tolerate tyranny, and they know that that's what they face. They're aggressive and patient. Ahmadinejad is in serious trouble.
Bush's cost only about 8 thousand. And with it, he has probably saved the world. The man was the greatest genius of human freedom since Lincoln, but he was far more strategic, and effective, in much more difficult areas of the world, and he didn't even lose his life in the process.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Mr. Bush.
As it is, you're only counting coalition casualties (maybe only US casualties). Estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties run from 150K to north of 1.3M. At the high end, Mr. Bush's war killed more people than the civil war, and on a much smaller population basis. Unless you believe that we've liberated Iraqis by killing them, you need to work on your arithmetic.
Moreover, the assumption on the right is that the end that was achieved could only have been achieved by the means employed. I'm doubtful.
I believe that Mr. Obama deserves some consideration for working on Arab-Israeli peace during his first year in office, rather than waiting until his last, as Mr. Bush did. Mr. Obama's Cairo speech has opened the possibility of constructive dialog with Arab states, both regarding Israel, and as regards the democratic aspirations of their people. Not bad for "mere words."
They are very brave people who tried to chart a new direction for America, to realign the government with what the government should be doing on Christian terms.
Ah, no. We have a secular government, per the 1st amendment. I certainly don't mind if our leaders possess a moral and ethical judgement informed by religion. I do mind if they let religious beliefs stand in lieu of critical judgement, as Mr. Bush did.
George W. Bush is the world's greatest living man.
Mark this -- GWB will never travel to continental Europe, because if he does, he'll be arrested and tried before the International War Crimes Tribunal. Some great man.
4096 characters just isn't enough.
Note -- I include Republicans in the Left -- they are simply aping the Leftists of 30-50 years ago.
GM, can we agree that either (a) words should be used with their conventional meanings, or (b) if unusual technical meanings are ascribed, those meanings should be specified and justified at first use?
It seems to me that if we take the position that we get to freely redefine words at any point in the discussion, we're not going to accomplish much. I don't mean to be too pedantic, but I do like for discussions to be productive.
Stu,
I'm not redefining anything. Simply look at the policies of Republicans in power at least since 1999 when Newt was no longer SOH -- but honestly since Eisenhower (the first Republican after FDR, naturally).
These policies are generally all statist and expansionist and Unionist (not surprising considering the GOP began its life under these three banners).
Since Nixon the GOP has catered to social conservatives who felt abandoned by the Democrats -- and so the party is quasi-reactionary on social issues, but the GOP is nothing but progressive on governance and imperialism -- "neo-conservative" after all is just another word for progressive. And I think both Kennedy and LBJ would have been delighted to get all jingoistic in the Middle East, as we have done. Perhaps if they started there, LBJ would have run in '68 and things would certainly be different. . .
At any rate, there are very few on the right today. Even neo-nazis are socialists (just white socialists instead of latina socialists like Sotomayor).
Oh and the bit about it not being about John Brown is BS.
That would be like me writing a song about my friend whose middle name was Michael and whose last name was Jackson.
Even if I wanted it not to be about the Gloved One, it still would be, because that name is as impossible to escape in 2009 as John Brown's was in 1861.
I'm not redefining anything.
I beg to differ. Left and right are terms that are relevant only with respect to the political dynamic of the moment. What you're doing amounts to defining 1928 as a universal reference point, and left and right in terms of the distribution of political views that held at the time. This is a strongly unconventional use of language.
Since Nixon the GOP has catered to social conservatives who felt abandoned by the Democrats -- and so the party is quasi-reactionary on social issues, but the GOP is nothing but progressive on governance and imperialism -- "neo-conservative" after all is just another word for progressive.
I'll grant that the GOP is quasi-reactionary on social issues. But both progressives and neo-conservatives would object to the notion that they are synonymous, and with cause. Even I'd defend the neo-conservatives against the charge of imperialism. They started an illegal war, and used public means to pursue private ends, and therefore are guilty of maladministration in addition to ordinary incompetence, but it is not plausible that they intended to make Iraq the 51st state.
At any rate, there are very few on the right today. Even neo-nazis are socialists (just white socialists instead of latina socialists like Sotomayor).
Again, I don't buy it. Neo-nazis are alienated people, who feel powerless, and have decided to attach themselves to a symbol and cause that once held great power. Moreover, by demonizing the Jews, they enjoy the illusion of having scraped themselves off the bottom of the barrel, by interposing the Jews between themselves and the bottom planks. Real Nazis were economic oligarchs, and populist rabble rousers. Fortunately, their self-assessment of their military skills was as bad as their sense of justice. Neo-nazis are neither right nor left, since they have no stake in either established wealth or distributive justice. They're merely pathetic, if occasionally dangerous.
As for Sotomayor -- she's no socialist. Indeed, I see little evidence that she believes any more in distributive justice than any of the corporatist tools that GWB appointed to the court. The most cogent arguments against Sotomayor seem to be (1) the GOP feels a moral obligation to say NO to everything Obama says, and (2) identity politics, because heaven knows, since white males make up 26.1% of the US population, simple probability theory, with no additional assumptions, proves that they must contain 100% of the qualified federal jurists.
Oh and the bit about it not being about John Brown is BS.
I'll grant that the famous John Brown had a long shadow in 1861, but it's a common enough name. I was surprised to read the claim that the John Brown of John Brown's body wasn't the famous John Brown. On the other hand, there does seem to be evidence that the song evolved pretty quickly, lending an abolitionist cant that wasn't so clear originality. I suspect we'll never know, but this is one of those cases where I have to wonder why the claim was made, if it wasn't true. If you think that the given history is a lie, please explain who stood to gain, and what, by telling it.
The lie was made in order to make the singers look less like folks who were making a hero out of a martyr, since even back in the 1860s there were folks who didn't like slavery but thought JB went WAY too far.
Whites are 74% of the population. That would make white males approximately 37% percent of the population.
However, 89% of lawyers are white, and 73% of them are men -- so 65% of all lawyers are white men.
La Raza fusses about California's judges being about 70% men and 70% white -- but that's better than the lawyer stats.
I would venture to say that since judicial seats are either elected or appointed -- that is it's not what you know but who you blow -- that the racial/gender lines of judges are more "even" than that of lawyers.
At any rate, since men and especially white men are more apt to be lawyers than any other demographic, we can assume that most of the "best" lawyers will be white men -- and that they are the ones who will end up on SCOTUS.
Distributive justice != socialism.
Socialism is state ownership of industry.
Anything resembling distributive justice (that is, taking stuff from folks who have it and giving it to the "rightful" or "deserving") is simply theft with a pretty name.
Just because one group stole something doesn't mean you can steal it back (especially if the claims on theft are weak -- as they generally are).
The commandment is Do Not Steal, not steal if you can justify it.
The lie was made in order to make the singers look less like folks who were making a hero out of a martyr, since even back in the 1860s there were folks who didn't like slavery but thought JB went WAY too far.
I don't want to spend too much effort arguing down a tangent, but it seems to me that your previous argument was that any song about a John Brown sung in 1861 had to be about the John Brown, but now it is that it was possible by claiming that it wasn't to be believed. Huh? If you want to sing an abolition song, sing an abolition song.
Whites are 74% of the population. That would make white males approximately 37% percent of the population.
You're right. I misread the table. The argument still holds :-).
However, 89% of lawyers are white, and 73% of them are men -- so 65% of all lawyers are white men.
The 65% depends on independence of the underlying random variables. This feels a sketchy to me, but I'll go with it.
La Raza fusses about California's judges being about 70% men and 70% white -- but that's better than the lawyer stats.
California's demographics aren't the same as the US's demographics: California was 59.8% white in 2006, and dropping. I suspect that La Reza's real issue is that California is 35.9% Hispanic, and that the corresponding percentages of lawyers and judges is much lower. I understand the way memory effects work in populations with tenure, so what you really want to be looking at is the percentages on the input side, relying on time to adjust the demographics of the population as a whole. It's not easy, and people are impatient.
I would venture to say that since judicial seats are either elected or appointed -- that is it's not what you know but who you blow -- that the racial/gender lines of judges are more "even" than that of lawyers.
I'd suspect less even, based on the same argument. Judges are appointed by politicians, and the electoral process is designed to create supermajorities out of bare majorities. Moreover, memory effects mean that you have to account for the past, and the proportions of white males in the population was higher in the past than it is in the present.
It would be nice to have real statistics.
At any rate, since men and especially white men are more apt to be lawyers than any other demographic, we can assume that most of the "best" lawyers will be white men -- and that they are the ones who will end up on SCOTUS.
Most != All, and arguments that the "best" candidate available must be white rest firmly on the fallacy that probabilities greater than 1/2 are 1. I suspect that legal competence is (to a first approximation) independent of identity. And second-order effects should tend mean that groups that are underrepresented in the population of lawyers would, if anything, be overrepresented in the population of "best" lawyers. They have fewer opportunities to get their idiot sons through as legacies, after all. Therefore, if 65% of lawyers are white males, then at most 65% of the best lawyers are white males. This means that there's a pretty decent chance (roughly 1:2) that the best candidate will not be a white male.
Distributive justice != socialism.
Socialism is state ownership of industry.
Show me a ruling of Sotomayor that argues for state ownership of industry.
Anything resembling distributive justice (that is, taking stuff from folks who have it and giving it to the "rightful" or "deserving") is simply theft with a pretty name.
No. Distributive justice is about the concept that everyone has an opportunity to live a meaningful life -- that the weakest members of society are cared for. This is at the core of Jesus's message -- care for the widows and orphans, and the disposessed of the land.
A progressive tax code, coupled with a social safety net, is perfectly reasonable, and just, approach to governmental policy that has a distributional effect.
Stu, in your second to last paragraph you bring back in Jesus' message as a governmental argument, and yet you said in another post just before this that religious argumentation shouldn't trump critical judgement. Distributive redistribution doesn't work. It creates endless resentment and makes the government way too powerful, eclipsing the rights of individuals, ultimately.
Critical judgement should say to us, let's not go in that direction, even if there's a religious argument behind it.
And even if that argument pretends to be that of Jesus.
Since we're fallen, anyone who's doing that redistributing will just enjoy the power it gives them, and use it accordingly to their own will, rather than to the will of God.
Stu, in your second to last paragraph you bring back in Jesus' message as a governmental argument, and yet you said in another post just before this that religious argumentation shouldn't trump critical judgement. Distributive redistribution doesn't work. It creates endless resentment and makes the government way too powerful, eclipsing the rights of individuals, ultimately.
A reasonable argument, so let me clarify. I think it is inevitable that politicians will bring their beliefs, faiths, and all of themselves to the governing process. These commitments will undoubtedly inform and influence what they do.
But arguments for the policies so informed and influenced should not be made on religious grounds -- they have to be made on policy grounds that are religiously neutral.
For example, the relatively modest redistribution that I described is easily enough argued for on a policy basis. The rich benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure provided by government. They should pay in proportion to the benefit they receive, and this argues for a progressive tax structure.
Likewise, societies in which there is too great a gulf between rich and poor, and too little social mobility, tend to be inefficient and unjust. Therefore, policies that tend to encourage social mobility (e.g., student loans) are sound public policy, and they tend to coincide with religious imperatives.
But let's think about distribution of any specific ethnic group across any specific profession. Let's imagine that all groups are equally talented and equally interested in every profession from criminal and prostitute and garbageman to judge and lawyer and Senator.
Then let's zero in on a profession that is clearly tilted toward African Americans. The NBA generally has ten men on the court at any given time. At any specific point, about 8 of those men will be African-American. The other two are either Eastern Europeans (Latvians and Yugoslavs, in particular) or else a few others, a Chinese man or two, and a few whites from Indiana.
I think you have to think about the number of people from different backgrounds with a deep interest in basketball. It is of no interest at all to me. But if you go into NYC and watch any playground, it's mostly African Americans who are playing the game.
Even in white, or in Chinese areas, it's blacks who are playing.
In a similar way, there are some groups that you will find overrepresented studying in libraries around the city.
You aren't as likely to see African American men in such situations as reading in the science areas.
But if you want to redistribute every profession so that every ethnic group is identical in every profession, then we should see 75% of basektballers on every court as white.
If you want judges to match up with the ethnicity of a neighborhood, fine, but you have to do the same thing across the board.
If you want prisons to reflect numbers, then you have to put a certain number of whites into the prisons, and take out a huge percentage of blacks and Hispanics, irregardless of what anyone has actually done to merit imprisonment.
You let out rapists and gang bangers and put in someone who was too busy reading Shakespeare to escape the dragnet.
I think it's absurd to think that CounterReformation societies such as Puerto Rico would present as many literate citizens as would Reformation societies such as Lutherans.
Compare Puerto Rico to Minnesota in your mind for half a second.
Now maybe you want to redistribute Minnesotan intellectual wealth to Puerto Rico, while dumbing down Minnesota by ruining their schools and killing enough dads so that the fatherless rates will be identical so that everything will be fair.
But would this be fair?
Or should you just leave merit and the perception of it intact not only on basketball courts but in other courts as well?
It's a tricky business to get this redistributive thang going on. In a given mathematics classroom, I assume that some of your best students will be black. Not many, but some. And some will be Puerto Rican. But I'm assuming that most will be white, and among those, most of those will be hard-working and come from a background in which there are other educated people who helped them get where they are at the U. of C.
But you don't redistribute the grades, do you? You don't give a better grade to a black woman even if she failed just to redistribute, or give a failing grade to a white male, just on account of the demographics, do you?
I think we have to play fair across the board, and not pretend we are God.
But then, I believe in Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, not only in the country at large, but also in my specific classrooms. People do as well as they can, and I try to be blind in terms of race, gender, class, and give each student what they deserve according to a standard.
I do think that everybody deserves the chance to go to college (unlike Governor Wallace). But they also should have the right to fail, if they can't cut the mustard.
Not only in the NBA, but in law school, and elsewhere, the only criterion should be talent. Otherwise we're screwing up the field itself.
If you redistribute the NBA so that whites have a better chance, the league won't be nearly so good.
Kirby --
I don't think that every demographic must be represented proportionately in every profession. I do, however, think that substantial deviations are worth understanding, and to the extent that analysis shows that access to a profession has been limited by considerations other than ability, amelioratives may be appropriate.
For example, it wasn't that long ago that the legacy system provided a back-door into the admissions process of Harvards and Yales of the world. Let's suppose, to make the situation easier to understand, that there are two equally large groups of people -- we'll call them the apples and the oranges. Further, let's suppose that we have a thousand applicants for a hundred slots, and that five-hundred of the applicants are apples, and five-hundred are oranges. All else being equal, you'd expect that there would be fifty apples and fifty oranges (modulo statistical fluctuations) in each entering class.
But that's not what you would have seen in the 50s and 60s. Instead, because the college was founded by apples, they've historically made up almost 100% of the colleges alumni. Moreover, children of alumni are given an advantage in admissions because of their alumni status. Let's say that 80 alumni children occur in that population of one thousand applicants, and they're all admitted. This means that there are four-hundred twenty apples left, and five-hundred oranges in the applicant pool. They split the remaining slots proportionately, say nine apples and eleven oranges. So the entering class is comprised of 89 apples, and 11 oranges, rather than 50-50. That's fair?
Of course not. The legacy system had a dampening effect, providing disproportionate opportunity to historically favored groups, and corresponding disadvantage to historically disfavored groups. But such an analysis depends on understanding why the proportions are unexpected. We could do the same sort of analysis of basketball -- I suspect that the issues would involve minor physical differences that are magnified in importance because we're looking at the tail of distributions, and the overreliance that the African-American community (and residents of Indiana) places on athletic accomplishment as a means of escaping poverty (or corn-fields, respectively).
Not only in the NBA, but in law school, and elsewhere, the only criterion should be talent.
I agree. But here's the problem. We can't measure talent, we can only measure accomplishment, and accomplishment is going to depend on talent and ancillary considerations, such as differences in opportunity that come from differences in parental resources.
Your argument that we should only consider talent is ultimately economic -- we want the best result at the end of the process. And attempts to disentangle accomplishment from talent have proven to be problematic, with the Supremes repeatly reversing themselves as to what steps are necessary, and what are forbidden.
if 65% of the best are white men -- then the court prior to O'Connor leaving was perfect -- 6 white men, 2 women, and a black guy -- at least according to those stats.
"They should pay in proportion to the benefit they receive, and this argues for a progressive tax structure."
They do, but they always will. Even if we paid a flat tax, the rich would pay more because they spend more.
Under a flat sales tax they might not spend as much as a percentage of income, but Jesus told us specifically not to worry about that anyway.
Our current system makes the bottom third or so of the country non-payers into the system. That's hardly healthy for them, if we're basing value on contribution (a thing we seem to do).
Stu,
"Therefore, policies that tend to encourage social mobility (e.g., student loans)"
As someone saddled with the albatross of student loans (seriously, why did they recommend student loans to someone who is going to be a teacher? but whatever), I can guarantee you that the system is corrupt and vile -- like all usurious entities.
But 1) you can't base success solely on admission to the Ivies
and 2) Law schools have had the LSAT since 1948 and bars have been giving exams since before that -- at least the 18th century.
So then you have to ask, as Justice Sotomayor did not, why did the white folks do better on the exam?
Especially one written in an age where bias, etc. are specifically written out of examinations?
if 65% of the best are white men -- then the court prior to O'Connor leaving was perfect -- 6 white men, 2 women, and a black guy -- at least according to those stats.
And will be restored after Sotomayor's confirmation. But of course, you either decide you're going to play identity politics or not. At this point, I don't believe that anyone is playing identity politics. The R's are saying NO because Obama did the nomination. They'd say no if he nominated Robert Bork.
They do, but they always will. Even if we paid a flat tax, the rich would pay more because they spend more.
A flat tax would mean more, but not more in proportion. The poor don't benefit so much from tax havens, or depreciation allowances, or even police protection as the rich. More in proportion is fair. The question of "how much more" is difficult, and in the end, simply political.
Our current system makes the bottom third or so of the country non-payers into the system. That's hardly healthy for them, if we're basing value on contribution (a thing we seem to do).
It would be interesting to know the actual percentage of non-payers. A third seems high. But you may be surprised that I do agree -- it's not healthy to be a non-payer. Everyone should contribute as they can, and pretty much everyone can contribute something. Here, something does not necessarily mean money.
"Therefore, policies that tend to encourage social mobility (e.g., student loans)"
As someone saddled with the albatross of student loans (seriously, why did they recommend student loans to someone who is going to be a teacher? but whatever), I can guarantee you that the system is corrupt and vile -- like all usurious entities.
For my part, I'd prefer grants to loans. But that would strike you as even more redistributionist, wouldn't it? I've been through loan payments for myself and my wife, and it would have been a lot more difficult without Pell Grants for my wife. I can remember well having to fill out the response to "Tell us how you manage to live on your income."
1) you can't base success solely on admission to the Ivies
I don't, it was just to provide a sufficiently concrete illustration in which I expected that there would be enough of a shared understanding to make a more general point. Please understand -- I teach at the University of Chicago. It's a safe bet that if I'm using the Ivies to illustrate a point, it's not going to be flattering to them.
2) Law schools have had the LSAT since 1948 and bars have been giving exams since before that -- at least the 18th century.
Right. And you don't think you have to "pass for gentleman" to get through the bar? It's not as if it's a multiple choice test, with a certain percentage required to pass. Last I heard, there were interviews too.
As for Sotomayor, much of the noise from Fox et. al. is about the Ricci case, in which Sotomayor's decision was very explicit w.r.t. the Supreme Court precedent that she (as an appelate judge) was required to follow under stare decisis. The Supreme Court later reversed itself, which it was not in Sotomayor's power to do.
Of course, lies so much better fit the Republican narrative than simple truths.
Hey, guys. I expected some discussion from this, but again, I'm surprised by the direction it's taken. No one reacted to the 9/11 reference. Am I to take it from that that you agree that Islam (a peaceful religion) should not be judged based on the way it has been twisted to support suicidal terrorism?
That would be nice...
I don't really give two figs about discussing Islam.
Any religion can be twisted to support anything. That's the problem with language, desire, and power.
I'm also not terribly interested in debating the finer points of the Ricci case except to say SCOTUS hardly reversed itself.
And since Sotomayor certainly wants the State to intervene in private matters when race is concerned, that at least makes her statist, if not outright socialist.
Perhaps I should have just said racist?
And the bar exam is explicitly multiple choice in parts (see the wikipedia article or ask a lawyer).
And no, grants don't strike me as more redistributionist than loans. Loans are a way to keep the middle-class down WRT to the upper and lower classes.
If everyone had grants, there wouldn't be a question of access based on economics.
Access would be based on ability and accomplishment, as it should be (and is not now).
And no, grants don't strike me as more redistributionist than loans. Loans are a way to keep the middle-class down WRT to the upper and lower classes.
If everyone had grants, there wouldn't be a question of access based on economics.
Access would be based on ability and accomplishment, as it should be (and is not now).
Ah, good. We have something to agree on, something to build on.
And the bar exam is explicitly multiple choice in parts (see the wikipedia article or ask a lawyer).
Chase one more link, this one.
Look under "General requirements for admission." Note the following bullet point: Be certified (usually by the state bar association) as having the good moral character and fitness to practice law.
Hole, truck.
I'm also not terribly interested in debating the finer points of the Ricci case except to say SCOTUS hardly reversed itself.
Reversed may be too strong. Changed the law? You betcha. cite. So who was the activist here?
And since Sotomayor certainly wants the State to intervene in private matters when race is concerned, that at least makes her statist, if not outright socialist.
Perhaps I should have just said racist?
Cite, please. Or does this just come from membership in La Reza? It is a heck of a stretch to assign every belief of an organization to all of its members.
Please.
The "wise latina" quote -- which she repeated, btw, is fine evidence for me that she believes la raza is superior.
What we should be asking about WWII is why didn't Goebbels or Himmler just shoot Hitler? Why did they issue his insane orders? Why did the Nazi soldiers at the camps kill people?
Goebbels and Himmler were as insane as Hitler. Göring was insane too. They shared his delusions. Your question is much more interesting in the case of Keitel, von Brauchitsch, and Raeder. We know that von Staffenberg got it, and Rommel too. These were intelligent men, with a shared professionalism.
As for the soldiers, I suspect that they were young, frightened, etc. No excuse, but it seems to me that one of the reasons that armies draft 17 and 18 year olds is that (as a population) their moral development hasn't yet started to catch up with their physical development.
The "wise latina" quote -- which she repeated, btw, is fine evidence for me that she believes la raza is superior.
It's pretty clear to me that she was referring to a class of one -- herself. We can disagree over this, of course, interpretation is everything. But I think she was saying that her judgment, informed not only by a fine legal education, but by more "real world experience" than the white men on the court, would "more often than not" be better than their's.
I'll grant that this is not a sign of great humility. I won't grant that it's a sign of racism.
Why would they give up their personhood? Why would we support war -- which eats people in this way?
I agree. The post that started this was intended as an analysis of one of the means whereby people are manipulated to set aside their humanity in order to kill others. My hope is that if we can recognize the manipulation, we can explain it, and rob it of its power.
I used words like "seductive", "dangerous", "propaganda", "intensely problematic." Hardly words of approbation.
"insane" is an excuse.
I'm sure all of them would have passed mental examinations.
Maybe if they got to choose the examiner.
Why did they choose to murder?
Greed. An old definition of aggressive war is "armed robbery writ large." And a sense that they, and their people, were all that mattered. You'll recall a fairly elaborate theory of über- and üntermentch.
Why did FDR choose to murder Japanese and German civilians?
Did he?
I assume that you're referring here to the strategic bombing campaigns in both theaters, which are the only places where I can think that the allies came close to intentionally targetting civilians.
May we separate theaters? In the European theater, US strategic bombers were typically engaged in "precision" attacks against specific military targets. These were almost always daylight raids. The problem was that the degree of precision was pretty poor, and highly dependent on crew training and motivation. Of course, post-war analyses have shown that the strategic bombing campaign in Europe was ineffective in reducing the production of armaments, etc. But that wasn't really the goal. The goal was to force the Luftwaffe to interdict the raids, wearing down the German fighter force preparatory to the Normandy landings.
I always wondered why so many German civilians chose to live near marshalling yards. Didn't they have a sense of what was coming? And where do I live? Two blocks south of one of the biggest marshalling yards in south metro Chicago.
In the European Theater, it was Bomber Harris and the Brits who did nighttime incendiary bombing specifically targetting civilians.
In the Pacific Theater, the decision to move from high-altitude precision daylight raids to low-altitude, nighttime incendiary raids came late. Was FDR truly cognizant of them at that time? The nominal rationale was loss rates in the B-29 force, and the dispersed nature of Japanese production. The real rational? For fighting forces in the Pacific Theater, it was a racist war to the death, on both sides, with no clear discrimination between soldier and civilian.
I do not say this with approval, but merely to provide the historically sanctioned answer to your question.
So if I said a wise white man would come to a better conclusion than a latina, that wouldn't be racist?
Depends on the context. If Latinas constituted 77% of the court, and white men had life experiences that they didn't that were relevant to a significant proportion of the cases at hand, then no. The point to a nine-member supreme court is to provide a diverse set of opinions, among a group well qualified to judge them. Nine guys who look like me doesn't provide optimal diversity. Adding Sotomayor will make for a more diverse court, and therefore a better court, even if she's on the losing side of every vote (and trust me, she'll be in the majority more often than Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia).
BTW, just to be clear here, I'm not one who believes that only whites can be racist. I've certainly seen and heard minority racists, and will name it if I see it. I just don't see it here.
Is Darwin right that it is a war of all against all?
Including between and amongst humans, that there is competition, foremost, between us, for survival?
If so, what role does Christianity play? Is it a brake? Is it a mistake?
If Marxism merely argues that we will do better at surviving if the poor pool resources to combat the rich, we will then be able to overwhelm and destroy them.
If ethnic groups, or women's studies groups, adopt Marxist thought, and argue that if we pool our resources so that our faction will wipe out the more dominant groups, then, perhaps, Christian thought may have a place here but merely as a cover story for the deeper one of ethnic and gender strife.
I do think that any government that oppresses a specific group -- whether it's blacks in the Civil War, or firemen in connecticut who happen to be white, or the Untouchables of India, is not a legitimate government.
Because if it is a game, or even a war, of all against all, then the rules of engagement should at least be fair and level so that the best may truly win.
We have to fight to keep the gameboard fair. Beyond that, I am against fighting.
Is Darwin right that it is a war of all against all?
Thomas Hobbes, not Darwin. And no, it's not right, no matter who said it.
Including between and amongst humans, that there is competition, foremost, between us, for survival?
There certainly is competition between and amongst humans, just as there is cooperation. Some competition is good -- I'll take my Sox over your Yankees, thank you. Some cooperation is bad -- Hitler and Mussolini, for example.
If so, what role does Christianity play? Is it a brake? Is it a mistake?
GM proposed "to love, and to teach to love." I think this is an excellent start. if we accept the axoim "God is love," this could be rephrased, "to know God, and to teach God." But only if we accept the axiom.
We have to fight to keep the gameboard fair. Beyond that, I am against fighting.
Agreed. But paraphrasing a famous judge of antiquity, "What is fair?" We all know. We just don't all agree.
Sigh. Just to clarify the previous comment, when I said "to teach God," 'God' was intended to be the indirect object, not the direct object.
Was FDR truly cognizant of them at that time?
Here comes the apologist again.
It comes through in your insanity charges as well.
It's far more useful to view the Nazi leadership as sane. Certainly all of Germany didn't drop some bad acid at once.
It's useful because we can understand how and why we could do the same things.
The Nazis did nothing more than turn from God and embrace evil. Nothing more than what we do every day when we sin.
How do we keep from becoming them -- or even becoming FDR or Churchill -- someone for whom a life is less important than a flag?
It all points back to the Civil Religion question you started with.
Civil Religion is a false idol.
Our golden calf is red, white, and blue.
Is Darwin right that it is a war of all against all?
Thomas Hobbes, not Darwin. And no, it's not right, no matter who said it.
I wish I knew if you meant "correct" or "proper."
Some competition is good -- I'll take my Sox over your Yankees, thank you. Some cooperation is bad -- Hitler and Mussolini, for example.
Jeez, really? How much money is wasted because of Sox over Yankees? Half a billion a year? More? The Yankees are currently building a stadium that's going to end up costing 1.5 billion dollars.
Construction is good and all, but they seem to be sticking taxpayers with a significant portion of the bill. Generous estimates for the hungry in America give a number of about 40 million people (conservative estimates are around 20, but whatev). 1.5 billion dollars could a very long way towards feeding all of those people. But whoever's got the highest stickball numbers is way more important than whether or not people have eaten today.
Here comes the apologist again.
It comes through in your insanity charges as well.
It's far more useful to view the Nazi leadership as sane. Certainly all of Germany didn't drop some bad acid at once.
Sigh. I read "Mein Kampf," maybe 35 years ago. The impression is still strong -- insane, incoherent.
But I'll defend myself against whitewash, which seems to be your charge. Your question, stripped of its particulars, seems to have been, "How is it that good men, with a developed moral understanding, could have permitted themselves to participate in something evil?" That's why I rephrased the question in terms of the upper levels of the OKW. Because those guys, Keitel, von Brauchitsch, Raeder, and myriad others, were undoubtedly sane and capable. And I don't have the answer as to why they went along.
Likewise, I can't explain LeMay or Harris. Had they been on the losing side, they would have undoubtedly been executed as war criminals. I doubt LeMay was insane, and I don't know enough about Harris to have an opinion.
How do we keep from becoming them -- or even becoming FDR or Churchill -- someone for whom a life is less important than a flag?
I think this is hugely unfair to both FDR and Churchill. They were both politicians, but they both seemed to have the interests of their people foremost, and both played within the rules. They were not as adverse to war as you and I, but it does not seem to me that they sought war out. I don't recall wars of aggression fought by either the US or the UK during the periods when they held major governmental responsibilities. Consider Nanking, or Warsaw. There was more than a change of flag at stake.
It all points back to the Civil Religion question you started with.
Civil Religion is a false idol.
Our golden calf is red, white, and blue.
I think it's a bit more ambiguous than that, but that was my general sense. It is certainly not an an-alloyed good. It seems to me that nations ought to be allowed their founding myths, so long as they focus on people and aspirations. But the myths need a certain amount of constraint, and the US civil religion has gone well beyond those constraints.
>> Is Darwin right that it is a war of all against all?
> Thomas Hobbes, not Darwin. And no, it's not right, no matter who said it.
I wish I knew if you meant "correct" or "proper."
Correct.
> Some competition is good -- I'll take my Sox over your Yankees, thank you. Some cooperation is bad -- Hitler and Mussolini, for example.
Jeez, really? How much money is wasted because of Sox over Yankees? Half a billion a year?
Sigh. Getting into an economic analysis of sports is a waste of time. As for the hungry, until we solve the Malthusian problem, we will always have a large number of hungry. Simply reallocating resources from entertainment to feeding the poor is going to result in population increases, and more hungry. It's not solving the problem. I wish the problem of solving hunger was that simple, I really do.
Let me, instead, give another example of helpful competition. Students compete to get into better colleges. There is a resource allocation problem here, where (to a first approximation) the allocation decisions are made based on accomplishment. Even someone who "loses" through this competition, in the sense that they end up going to hoi polloi state instead of princevard is probably going to enter college better prepared, and therefore will have a more successful experience, than otherwise.
Certainly a better example.
I think it's pretty arguable that Germany did not wish to enter war with Britain. It's certainly arguable they didn't want to enter war with the US.
It's also telling that the UK and US refused to honor the goals of war. If they weren't going to free Poland et al, what were they fighting for?
I think we'll run out of desirable space before we run out of food (you can grow more than a pound of food per square foot of land if you know what you're doing) -- that means an area about the size of France can feed the entire world. At the population density of NYC, we could more than double the population of the planet and park everyone in North America, growing food on the rest of the planet.
I think it's pretty arguable that Germany did not wish to enter war with Britain. It's certainly arguable they didn't want to enter war with the US.
Arguable? Sure. True? Doubtful. There's this Operation Sealion thing. And the bombing campaign against the cities, which was intended to attrit UK fighter forces in advance of the channel crossing. I'll grant that the Führer's first interest was the extermination/subjugation of Russia, but the strategic flexibility available to the UK always posed a danger, and he was eager to remove it.
It's also telling that the UK and US refused to honor the goals of war. If they weren't going to free Poland et al, what were they fighting for?
The UK was fighting for survival, and for France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The US was happy to use the UK as a proxy in the fight against Germany, but Pearl Harbor changed that. It is not unlikely that US knowledge of the German nuclear program made the decision easy.
As for why they didn't free Poland? Well, there was this small question of the Russian Army, and whether we had the means (doubtful) and the will (certainly not) to fight them, having disposed of German.
You've been arguing all along that FDR fought too much war. It seems mighty strange to me that you're now arguing that he fought too little.
I think we'll run out of desirable space before we run out of food (you can grow more than a pound of food per square foot of land if you know what you're doing)
How much fertilizer and irrigation is needed to get that kind of yield? What sort of variability in diet is possible, if you're driven solely by calories per acre?
In any event, I believe that the key question is this: what is going to limit population growth? Will we chose to limit it ourselves? Or will we let nature throw up a bottleneck that limits it for us?
I see little public will yet to embrace the first option. So it seems to me we're going to let nature do the job. What is life likely to be like when we're at the bottleneck? Not so good, I think, and monotonically worse in population size. So I'm in no rush to get there, and I think that the more time we have to think before we hit the bottleneck, the better we'll do.
Stu --
Well we should start first with fertility education, not sex education. If we actually taught girls to monitor their fertility (and taught boys that they were always fertile), then good old informed consent might actually do something.
But the problem isn't population growth in America (which but for immigration would be negative) -- it's population growth in places like Asia and Africa.
We could educate them as well, but we'd have to feed them first (which does a good job of making more babies).
As far as FDR/Churchill are concerned my argument is that the cake is a lie.
That is, we weren't there for why we said we'd go there and we certainly didn't achieve our goals.
So why go in the first place? Neither Germany nor Japan would have been stupid enough to try an invasion.
http://www.harvestgarden.org/newsarticle.htm
That's 7000 pounds on 3/4 of an acre (6000 sq ft is about 1/8 of an acre).
We don't use any fertilizer & use drip irrigation and grow more food than we can eat. Do you want some okra?
Well we should start first with fertility education, not sex education. If we actually taught girls to monitor their fertility (and taught boys that they were always fertile), then good old informed consent might actually do something.
What education can do, hormones and a bit of alcohol can undo. So I'm a bit skeptical that teaching girls the rhythm method is going to do anything other than increase the birth rate. And then there's always the, "we've got to stay together for the baby" gambit.
Teach 'em morals, teach 'em biology, teach 'em economics. But don't forget to make it easy for them to get condoms. Informed consent could use a bit of help.
But the problem isn't population growth in America (which but for immigration would be negative) -- it's population growth in places like Asia and Africa.
Right. But you claim 40M hungry. Feed them, and you've made a big change. It seems to me that the population rate would increase at that point, and we'd be back to exponential growth.
We could educate them as well, but we'd have to feed them first (which does a good job of making more babies).
Exactly.
As far as FDR/Churchill are concerned my argument is that the cake is a lie.
That is, we weren't there for why we said we'd go there and we certainly didn't achieve our goals.
Churchill went in for Poland. He could have argued at the end, and probably would have, that the Pole's were liberated from the Germans, and liberating them from the Russians was more than he bargained for. In any event, responsibility for the UK passed to Clement Attlee in July '45, which is right in the middle of the window when such a decision might have been made. FDR certainly saw Germany as a long term strategic threat, and I think he was right. Russia was a strategic threat too, but for various reasons, less pressing in 1945.
I think the argument that FDR manipulated the country into war has some merit, but the argument that he was cognizant of the attack on Pearl is nonsense (not that I'm accusing you of making it).
I hate being on the side of being an apologist for war, but I do think it is important to treat history honestly. A huge question going into WW II was whether the "children of democracy" could survive in a world when confronted by the "children of totalitarianism." Both sides asked this question, with particular intensity after the fall of France, and both sides suspected that the answer might be no. What FDR won, in the end, was a resounding "yes," which has certainly had the effect of making other totalitarian regimes circumspect about pursuing war against the liberal democracies of the west.
With a full realization of all the parallels I'm drawing, I'd argue that the "Pax Americana" has pretty much held since 1945. There have been wars, but they've been strictly limited in terms of the territory fought over, and the weapons and goals pursued. I'd very much prefer "peace through justice" to "peace through victory," but either is preferable to annihilation/slavery.
So why go in the first place? Neither Germany nor Japan would have been stupid enough to try an invasion.
There's evidence that both Japan and Germany had long-term plans to invade the US. Whether they would have ever been tempted to go through with them is doubtful, but they did dream the dream. Oh, and there is that small matter that German had operational intermediate range ballistic missles at the end of the war, and was actively pursuing research on intercontinental ballistic missles. Combine that with a nuclear program, and there's a strategic problem of the first magnitude.
That's 7000 pounds on 3/4 of an acre (6000 sq ft is about 1/8 of an acre).
We don't use any fertilizer & use drip irrigation and grow more food than we can eat.
Not bad, but the arithmetic gives about 1/5 lb/ft^2, which is 1/5th the yield you claimed earlier. I can believe 1/5 lb/ft^2, but that's not enough to feed my wife and I using the back lawn.
Do you want some okra?
I love okra. My wife hates it :-(. Gumbo, fried okra, grilled okra. Mmmm.
Stu,
I did not say the rhythm method. I mean actually knowing when they are fertile, not guessing.
And it's super easy to get condoms now.
I know I was talking about 1/5 -- but I couldn't find the stats on the urban farmer my wife knows about and she is sick in bed.
And you must have an awfully small back yard -- a 6000 square foot (60x100) plot would still give up more than half a ton of veggies -- or about a pound a day for each of you, even at 1/5 the optimal rate.
I did not say the rhythm method. I mean actually knowing when they are fertile, not guessing.
I'm somewhat skeptical of nonbarrier methods. They don't stop STDs, and even if we assume that the woman can make a near-perfect assessment of her own momentary fertility (and I'm doubtful), it seems to me unlikely that the man can do anything to verify it. Hence, a real potential for lack of informed consent.
Condoms are more easily verified by both partners.
And you must have an awfully small back yard -- a 6000 square foot (60x100) plot would still give up more than half a ton of veggies
Let's say 60 x 50, for 3K ft^2. That's actually medium-large for a Chicago suburb -- the alley that was supposed to get built never did, and our property ended up with the "extra" land. The whole plot is 230 x 50. It makes more sense if you know that Illinois used to tax urban real estate based on frontage.
My wife teaches the Creighton model of NFP (we're not Catholics, as you know) and it works as advertised -- not only for us but for her clients as well.
Let's imagine everyone is taught the Creighton method (the one that doesn't require equipment other than a chart)
If a girl knew she was fertile -- or if a boy knew the girl should know, there would at least be a little more discussion of what was going on -- much like the widespread discussion of STDs has at least curbed some reckless behavior. . .
Post a Comment