It occurs to me that the debate over global warming and climate change breaks down along fairly ideological lines.  Apart from the obvious conservative-liberal split, I have come to think of people as having one of the following attitudes as it pertains to the environment, planet, and relevant issues:

• Custodial - meaning that the primary role of humans in the environment should be as caretakers and guardians of endangered animals, plants, ecosystems, and habitats.  These people are generally alarmed and saddened when a species goes extinct, or there is a prospect of gradual change in our climate.  Or when they seize upon so-called evidence that change in the climate has already occurred.  They may be whiny and obnoxious, but without their efforts we would not have places like our national parks.
  
• Development - meaning that the planet and its resources lay open to our use, and that we should make the most of that fact.  Cut down forests and build houses for people.  Raise animals and slaughter them for food.  Engage in mining operations and gather materials to develop technologies that make human life easier, better, or more productive.  These people are generally portrayed as villains on the show Captain Planet.  They may draw too deep from the well at times, going from legitimate use to exploitation.  But the attitude is necessary to make the sort of progress we've seen in the last century.

Contrast the two.  On the one hand you have Custodians who might put everything in test tubes and never let another Amazonian parasite go extinct, or halt forestry efforts to save owls who are displaced anyway when their owl-homes burn due to overgrowth.  Then you have Developers who might turn our planet into one of those weird sci-fi factory worlds or who would build condos on Indian burial grounds or something.
Both perspectives have their legitimate points.  My sympathies lie mostly with the Developers.  They have a much tougher time pleading their case due to its pragmatic nature.  Custodians only have to flash a picture of a panda cub or get a celebrity to chain themselves to a tree to convince people to support them.
What I feel we're seeing now is a clash between those who are very alarmed at the changes in our planet, and those who are rather laconic about the whole thing.  The "alarmists" feel a sense of righteous indignation at anyone who refuses to jump on the wagon.  These people cry out that we have to save the planet now, now, now!  They lack perspective.  Meanwhile, the folks who aren't so upset about it bristle at the notion that they are somehow equivalent to Holocaust-deniers.  They dismiss the arguments of the scientific community because if they disagree they are lumped in with gentleman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Is there a middle ground?  I think so.  We can be stewards of the environment without trying to put it into stasis.  We can adapt to changes in the environment, develop resources and maintain our standard of living while at the same time take good care of what we have.

Global climate change is certainly a challenging issue for future generations and for us today.  But I maintain that we are smart enough to confront it without dramatizing it, without panicking, and without punishing ourselves in a misguided attempt to "save" the planet.  It's all a matter of perspective.

Defining Marriage Down . . .
is no way to save it.
by David Blankenhorn
04/02/2007, Volume 012, Issue 28
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp

 

Does permitting same-sex marriage weaken marriage as a social institution? Or does extending to gay and lesbian couples the right to marry have little or no effect on marriage overall? Scholars and commentators have expended much effort trying in vain to wring proof of causation from the data--all the while ignoring the meaning of some simple correlations that the numbers do indubitably show.

Much of the disagreement among scholars centers on how to interpret trends in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz has argued, in this magazine and elsewhere, that the adoption of gay marriage or same-sex civil unions in those countries has significantly weakened customary marriage, already eroded by easy divorce and stigma-free cohabitation.

 

William Eskridge, a Yale Law School professor, and Darren R. Spedale, an attorney, beg to differ. In Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse?, a book-length reply to Kurtz, they insist that Kurtz does not prove that gay marriage is causing anything in those nations; that Nordic marriage overall appears to be healthier than Kurtz allows; and that even if marriage is declining in that part of the world, "the question remains whether that phenomenon is a lamentable development."

 

Eskridge and Spedale want it both ways. For them, there is no proof that marriage has weakened, but if there were it wouldn't be a problem. For people who care about marriage, this perspective inspires no confidence. Eskridge and Spedale do score one important point, however. Neither Kurtz nor anyone else can scientifically prove that allowing gay marriage causes the institution of marriage to get weaker. Correlation does not imply causation. The relation between two correlated phenomena may be causal, or it may be random, or it may reflect some deeper cause producing both. Even if you could show that every last person in North Carolina eats barbecue, you would not have established that eating barbecue is a result of taking up residence in North Carolina.

 

When it comes to the health of marriage as an institution and the legal status of same-sex unions, there is much to be gained from giving up the search for causation and studying some recurring patterns in the data, as I did for my book The Future of Marriage. It turns out that certain clusters of beliefs about and attitudes toward marriage consistently correlate with certain institutional arrangements. The correlations crop up in a large number of countries and recur in data drawn from different surveys of opinion.

 

Take the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a collaborative effort of universities in over 40 countries. It interviewed about 50,000 adults in 35 countries in 2002. What is useful for our purposes is that respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with six statements that directly relate to marriage as an institution:

 

1. Married people are generally happier than unmarried people.

 

2. People who want children ought to get married.

 

3. One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together.

 

4. It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married.

 

5. Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can't seem to work out their marriage problems.

 

6. The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children.

 

Let's stipulate that for statements one, two, and six, an "agree" answer indicates support for traditional marriage as an authoritative institution. Similarly, for statements three, four, and five, let's stipulate that agreement indicates a lack of support, or less support, for traditional marriage.

 

Then divide the countries surveyed into four categories: those that permit same-sex marriage; those that permit same-sex civil unions (but not same-sex marriage); those in which some regions permit same-sex marriage; and those that do not legally recognize same-sex unions.

 

The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.

 

In some instances, the differences are quite large. For example, people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely to say that people who want children ought to get married (38 percent vs. 60 percent). They are also significantly more likely to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right (83 percent vs. 50 percent), and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Respondents in the countries with gay marriage are significantly more likely than those in Australia and the United States to say that divorce is usually the best solution.

 

A similar exercise using data from a different survey yields similar results. The World Values Survey, based in Stockholm, Sweden, periodically interviews nationally representative samples of the publics of some 80 countries on six continents--over 100,000 people in all--on a range of issues. It contains three statements directly related to marriage as an institution:

 

1. A child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily.

 

2. It is all right for a woman to want a child but not a stable relationship with a man.

 

3. Marriage is an outdated institution.

 

Again grouping the countries according to the legal status of same-sex unions, the data from the 1999-2001 wave of interviews yield a clear pattern. Support for marriage as an institution is weakest in those countries with same-sex marriage. Countries with same-sex civil unions show more support, and countries with regional recognition show still more. By significant margins, support for marriage is highest in countries that extend no legal recognition to same-sex unions.

 

So what of it? Granted that these correlations may or may not reflect causation, what exactly can be said about the fact that certain values and attitudes and legal arrangements tend to cluster?

 

Here's an analogy. Find some teenagers who smoke, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to drink than their nonsmoking peers. Why? Because teen smoking and drinking tend to hang together. What's more, teens who engage in either of these activities are also more likely than nonsmokers or nondrinkers to engage in other risky behaviors, such as skipping school, getting insufficient sleep, and forming friendships with peers who get into trouble.

 

Because these behaviors correlate and tend to reinforce one another, it is virtually impossible for the researcher to pull out any one from the cluster and determine that it alone is causing or is likely to cause some personal or (even harder to measure) social result. All that can be said for sure is that these things go together. To the degree possible, parents hope that their children can avoid all of them, the entire syndrome--drinking, smoking, skipping school, missing sleep, and making friends with other children who get into trouble--in part because each of them increases exposure to the others.

 

It's the same with marriage. Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goes hand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and a mother is weaker. A rise in nonmarital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.

 

Eskridge and Spedale are right. We cannot demonstrate statistically what exactly causes what, or what is likely to have what consequences in the future. But we do see in country after country that these phenomena form a pattern that recurs. They are mutually reinforcing. Socially, an advance for any of them is likely to be an advance for all of them. An individual who tends to accept any one or two of them probably accepts the others as well. And as a political and strategic matter, anyone who is fighting for any one of them should--almost certainly already does--support all of them, since a victory for any of them clearly coincides with the advance of the others. Which is why, for example, people who have devoted much of their professional lives to attacking marriage as an institution almost always favor gay marriage. These things do go together.

 

Inevitably, the pattern discernible in the statistics is borne out in the statements of the activists. Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional "conjugal institution."

That phrase comes from Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. She views the fight for same-sex marriage as the "vanguard site" for rebuilding family forms. The author of journal articles like "Good Riddance to 'The Family,'" she argues forthrightly that "if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise."

 

Similarly, David L. Chambers, a law professor at the University of Michigan widely published on family issues, favors gay marriage for itself but also because it would likely "make society receptive to the further evolution of the law." What kind of evolution? He writes, "If the deeply entrenched paradigm we are challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple, we should respect the similar claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit and against the romantic foundations of marriage."

 

Examples could be multiplied--the recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would "introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life"--but they can only illustrate the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage.

 

These facts have two implications. First, to the degree that it makes any sense to oppose gay marriage, it makes sense only if one also opposes with equal clarity and intensity the other main trends pushing our society toward postinstitutional marriage. After all, the big idea is not to stop gay marriage. The big idea is to stop the erosion of society's most pro-child institution. Gay marriage is only one facet of the larger threat to the institution.

 

Similarly, it's time to recognize that the beliefs about marriage that correlate with the push for gay marriage do not exist in splendid isolation, unrelated to marriage's overall institutional prospects. Nor do those values have anything to do with strengthening the institution, notwithstanding the much-publicized but undocumented claims to the contrary from those making the "conservative case" for gay marriage.

 

Instead, the deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization--the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization.

 

By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.

 

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books). 

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man.

By David Ehrenstein, L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN writes about Hollywood and politics.
March 19, 2007

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?

And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")

But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

I found this article to be an interesting take on the Obamenon among liberals today.  The man has enjoyed an unprecedented level of goodwill and support in the past two years.  Since his election to the Senate over Alan Keyes, his name has been one of the most whispered about presidential contenders for 2008.  While at first the whispering was merely idiotic, it has now become slightly less so.  At the time of his election, the man was coming from a background in state politics and community organization before that.  Hardly a presidential resume these days, but that didn't seem to shake the conviction of his supporters that B.O. would make a stellar president.
Why?  What in this man's background qualifies him to even run at this stage?  He has less than a full term in the U.S. Senate, and no executive experience that can be applied to the job of President.  He has been a legislator and organizer.  These are very different animals when compared to a President or even a governor.  The mechanics are different, the job is different -- and he hasn't proven his worth in his own elected position yet.
Why indeed should he garner such wide support if not for the the overwhelming desire of some Americans to demonstrate that the time of racism has passed?  I would argue that this is a form of racism in itself.  Why should his race be a driving factor in his support?  We should be able to assess the man free of these factors.
I would not say that Obama would be a terrible president...our elected leaders can only get our country into so much trouble, without help.  Obama's inexperience is not an asset, nor is his relative newness to Washington and its corrupting influence.  I posit that Obama has jumped the gun tremendously.  His character and freshness will not see him through the meatgrinder of this election.
Regarding white guilt...what a terrible motivation to support this man.  It is not as if there is a conscious awareness of the feeling.  Every supporter of Obama needs to search their heart and eschew every ounce of patronizing guilt over this man's blackness before they throw their lot in with him.  And then they need to look at his record and make the right decision:  Vote experience, not personality. 

And did we notice that Wikipedia has been used as a reference tool in this article?  Seeing that more and more...Not that I have a problem with it.

My fiancee heard on Rush Limbaugh today that there is a new service out there for women.  It goes by the name Exhale, and it is billed as a counseling talkline for women who have had abortions. 
I'm at a loss.  On the one hand, I cannot seem to trace the development of this movement.  For decades the push has been to relegate the status of the fetus to no more than a glob of tissue.  Why should a woman be any more upset over an abortion than she would be for getting a cancerous mole removed?  It seems that this organization is out of step with most abortion advocates in that it admits the level of trauma a woman can experience from the procedure.  That is, mental and physical trauma.  Feminists for Life have been on the ball with that for a while, but they somehow came to different conclusions than the women over at exhale.
Here comes the other hand:  What does this say about the people who get abortions or advocate them?  These folks are admitting that women need counseling and often have extreme guilt or sadness following an abortion, yet they don't see that it is abortion itself that is the problem.  No, they say that

...abortion, and having feelings afterward, is normal in the reproductive lives of women and girls.

WHAT?   Now I understand that miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) are often natural or out of the control of the mother.  But to say that poisoning the child with a saline solution (or dismembering it and then vacuuming it from the mother's womb[or delivering it partway and then ripping out its brain]) is normal is something a bit more than ill-thought.  That's downright stupid.
No, what this service says to me is that these people fully understand the guilt and remorse women feel after these procedures and attempt to minimize it by the same old lies.
I just can't wrap my mind around this, except to say that the best lies always have some truth to them.  "Feeling guilty?  Well don't bottle it up!  Talk about it, and remember, you didn't do anything wrong so eventually you'll get over it."  That's not healing.  That's amputation of the soul.

Card4_big

Here is a card with a picture of mountains that your child will never see.  A cloud that your child will never imagine to be shaped like a whale.  A tree your child will never climb.   Air your child will never breathe.
Let's be sure that you've dealt with this grief by next month, okay honey?  After all, life goes on.  Whoops, I mean for us it does.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp. has begun offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers, typically illegal immigrants, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

In recent years, banks across the country have been offering checking accounts and even mortgages to the nation's fast-growing ranks of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic, the paper said, adding these immigrants generally have not been able to get major credit cards.

The new Bank of America card is open to people who lack both a Social Security number and a credit history, as long as they have held a checking account with the bank for three months without an overdraft, the Journal said.

Bank of America tested the program last year at five branches in Los Angeles, and last week expanded it to 51 branches in Los Angeles County, home to the largest concentration of illegal immigrants in the U.S., the Journal said.

The bank hopes to roll out the program nationally later this year, the paper said.

A Bank of America spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

Wow.  Now I realize that people who are stupid/desperate enough to work here illegally are also stupid/desperate enough to launch themselves into credit card debt. 

So, it's looking like I need a new bank account.  When the person I talk to asks me why I'm closing my accounts, I wonder what their reaction will be when I tell them I don't patronize businesses that pander to illegal immigrants.

I don't care if they are in need.  Nobody needs a credit card.