Vox Popoli

Derb forgets that modern group socialization is relatively new:

That old Viennese witch doctor cast a long shadow. If I turn out wrong, it must be Mom and Dad’s fault! This cast of mind has influenced & distorted child development research for 60 years. Nowadays, however, there is a lot of counter-research, in which the influence of the home family environment, at any rate after age three, dwindles away almost (according to some researchers, anyway) to inconsequentiality. The big determinants of adult personality are (1) genes, and (2) group socialization. The home environment of the child comes in a distant third.

Probably the best thing we dads can do to give our kids a happy and useful adulthood is to make enough money that we can choose where to live, and then choose a district where our kids will be group-socialized to civilized bourgeois norms.

This strikes me as a shallow statement, given the way in which it assumes the sort of group socialization that only occurs when children are sent away to run around and learn about primate behavior in the temporary zoos known as “schools”. Given that parents control what sort of group socialization is permitted the child – and the admission that most parents choose the Lord of the Flies method doesn’t change the fact that they are choosing it – means that parental influence is absolutely vital even if Derb’s theory is true.

Now, I agree that parents do not establish personality. That is obvious to anyone who has ever observed an infant; it’s amazing to see how children demonstrate aspects of their personalities described by their mothers when they were still in the womb. But group socialization can only become dominant in those individuals permitted to spend the vast majority of their formative years in groups, an assertion so obvious it approaches a tautology.

The Episcopalians continue their hell-bent slide towards organizational suicide:

A woman was last night elected as the first female leader of the American branch of Anglicanism in a historic but divisive development that could hasten the break-up of the worldwide Church.

The Bishop of Nevada, the Rt Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, who is a leading liberal on homosexuality, is the first women primate in the history of Anglicanism.

Her role as Presiding Bishop is the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Her surprise election was greeted with whoops of joy by pro-women campaigners at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, where she was chosen by her fellow bishops in four hours of voting.

The Episcopalians appear to be on step seven. It’s interesting to see how a church that rejects Biblical instructions in the smaller issues soon begins to reject them in the larger ones. It’s not an accident that churches which embrace homosexuals and women in leadership roles soon begin to deny the Resurrection and the Bible. The only thing I find confusing about the whole thing is why they bother to call themselves Christian, although perhaps the monetary incentive to claim the millions of dollars owned by the church is reason enough to take it over.

And while I’m sure one must exist somewhere, there isn’t a single church in my experience that has continued to grow once it decides that the Apostle Paul’s insistence on male leadership is merely societal tradition and therefore outmoded. From what I’ve seen, they soon begin doing stupid things that inevitably lead to a rapidly declining membership. Now, feel free to label me sexist and so forth if you like, but I’d like to see each such critic also name a single thing in which increased female involvement has proven to be demonstrably beneficial other than the tautological benefit of involving more women.

“What a historic moment for the church,” said the Rt. Rev. Cate Waynick, the bishop of Indianapolis. “What an omen for the church….

I can’t argue with that. And by omen, I mean Damian, you understand.

Or at least, what Dear Jorge assures the American people is impossible:

There’s a great number of happy people in France today as a result of the news that the upper house of the French parliament has passed a tough new immigration bill. The bill was passed by an overwhelming number of votes weeks after it was adopted by members of the lower chamber of parliament.

The French immigration reform bill makes it more difficult for unskilled immigrants to settle in France, which in the past has created discord among French citizens who work menial jobs. The new bill, expected to be signed into law very soon, adds a number of tough measures to France’s immigration policy….

One significant provision is a requirement for immigrants to sign a contract agreeing to learn French and to respect the principles of the French Republic. In addition it makes it more difficult for them to bring their families over to join them. It also offers no provision for so-called anchor babies who are afforded citizenship as a result of being born in the country.

According to the French government, the following new rules will be part of the immigration law:

Only the qualified immigrants will be granted “skills and talents” residency permits.

Foreigners are only allowed into France to work, and not live off benefits such as welfare and free healthcare.

Foreign spouses of immigrants allowed to remain in France must wait longer before being granted residence cards.

Migrants must agree to learn French.

Migrants must sign a ‘contract’ stipulating they must respect the French way of life.

The new law also scraps the old one regarding workers receiving automatic citizenship after living and working 10 years in the country.

This is a very positive development for Europe, as it indicates that the French are electing the slow and civilized means of ending their migration problem rather than the fast and brutal one that I feared was in the cards. Americans may despise the French, but they have historically demonstrated a deepset national ruthlessness that belies their image as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

One need only compare Algeria to Vietnam to see the difference. It will be interesting to see if the French follow through on their new laws, and how that will affect the American immigration debate. It’s interesting, too, to see how the Bush administration’s pro-immigration positions and arguments are so similar to those of the French socialist party.

While I was pleased to see the USA restore its reputation somewhat, it was very disappointing to see the first truly bad refereeing of this World Cup. In the past, I’ve often wondered if FIFA instructs its referees to do any homework about the teams involved in the games they will be working, I particularly remember a Turkey-Italy game wherein Pippo Inzaghi dove to draw an absurd penalty and the commentator speculated that the referee had obviously never seen Inzaghi and his award-winning dramas before.

The red card shown to Mastroenni was absurd. The tackle was rough and it was a foul, but it was a yellow at most. I told Spacebunny that I wouldn’t be surprised to see a make-up red given to Italy after the break; the last thing I expected was for the US to pick up another red.

As always, the Italians were both skilled and shady. Pope’s second yellow was deserved, but his first was a textbook example of the quality that the Italians call “furbo”. It means “cunning” and Gilardino showed it in spades as he grabbed Pope by the jersey and dropped to the ground, drawing both the foul and the yellow card. FIFA has done an excellent job in cutting down on the diving, now it’s time for them to start handing out yellows for grabbing jerseys, there’s simply no good explanation for ever having a fistful of an opponent’s shirt in your grasp.

It was infuriating, but it was also a compliment of sorts that the Italians felt the need to resort to the customary international practices against the USA. And while it pains me to say it, the offsides call against McBride was correct, as McBride was definitely potentially involved in the play. Had he thrown himself to the side or even held still, the linesman might have held his flag, but that little reverse stab he made at the ball as it went by assured the foul call.

Kasey Keller was fantastic in stopping Del Piero twice, Beasely was tremendously improved over the Czech game, as was Landon Donovan, the only real disappointment besides Eddie Pope’s temporary insanity was Claudio Reyna. I would have exchanged him for Josh Wolff earlier on, there’s not much call for a midfielder who won’t make that last critical pass to the strikers in the area and can’t come within five meters of the goal when he shoots either. He also stood and watched Gilardino head the ball in for Italy’s goal rather than mark him, all in all, a shoddy performance by the USA’s overrated captain.

As for the Italians, it’s amazing to see how Totti simply cannot replicate his club form with the national side. At this rate, Lippi will be sitting him after the group stages. Italy’s problem is that while they have scorers, Lippi leaves his much-needed fox-in-the-box, Inzaghi, on the bench. Since moving to Milan from Juventus, he’s reduced the play-acting and is the perfect compliment to more proactive forwards such as Tino and Iaquinta.

While I don’t see them getting out of the real Group of Death, the USA can play with Ghana. If a victory is unlikely, at least the team will likely claim some of the respect that looked so unlikely after the Czech debacle. Drawing with Italy while down a man is a significant accomplishment and should provide the squad with genuine confidence going into the final group game.

Jonah Goldberg rightly castigates Democrats who are attempting to have it both ways on the Iraqi Occupation, but in doing so, he lets his rhetoric run away with him:

The details are obviously complicated. The normal rules of war don’t fully apply, since the insurgents use terror tactics, don’t wear uniforms, etc. But, we didn’t ask that every German be put on trial who had American blood on his hands after World War II and we didn’t ask that every North Vietnamese soldier face a tribunal.

Oh wait, that’s because we bugged out, just like the Democrats want to now.

We didn’t put every German on trial, but it obviously had nothing to do with bugging out since we are still occupying Germany. Or defending them against the Soviet Union, whatever.

Perhaps that’s the line we need to take to convince the American people that the Iraqi Occupation is necessary and proper. We’re defending the Iraqi people against a revival of Abbasid expansionism.

It’s not that winning isn’t an option, it’s that winning, as defined by the Bush administration, isn’t a possibility.

Podhoretz the Younger actually thinks this is a serious refutation of Derbyshire’s assertion of mission creep in Iraq:

What has occurred in the Iraq war has occurred in countless wars—the enemy gets a vote and events do not transpire according to some neat plan. Stubborn resistance and the need for greater exertions are not the same as mission creep. Our mission in Iraq has never changed; the nature of the enemy and therefore of the war on the ground has—that is not mission creep. President Lincoln requested 75,000 90-day volunteers to subdue the rebellion of Southern states in one or two Napoleonic battles. What we got was a grinding four year struggle to restore the Union and end slavery that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. That was not mission creep, even with the added goal of full emancipation since both restoration of the Union and freeing the slaves required the same outcome—a Northern victory. One could also say that, to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, no one on December 8, 1941, expected to bring the Axis powers to unconditional surrender (an “end state” announced more than a year after Pearl Harbor) only to embark on that other “long war,” the Cold War, following VE and VJ day. Was it therefore purely “mission creep” to remain in Europe and Asia as occupiers simply because we didn’t envision that in the days following Pearl Harbor? Did we expend all that blood and treasure merely to see Soviet dominance established over half of Europe? Did the American people sign on to the Berlin Airlift or to halting the North Koreans in 1945? Was the formation of NATO and other Cold War-era alliances (entangling alliances, one might say) a form of mission creep that Americans need not support? I could go on, but you get my point. Moreover, if we alter the “mission” in order to defend our principles, freedoms and way of life because the nature of the enemy has changed, does that reduce the legitimacy of that mission? The evolution of the Cold War fits the definition of mission creep far better than the war in Iraq does but that didn’t mean the Cold War was not worth fighting.

There’s a larger point here, though, one beyond the notion of mission creep. When things got rough and the sacrifices exceeded our pre-war expectations, we could have cut deals and declared “victory” in 1863, 1943 or 1963. Even though, again to paraphrase Mr. Derbyshire, during these earlier conflicts our leaders got us into situations we never wished to be in and were never asked whether we would wish to be in, we recognized our moral obligation, “as citizens of a democratic polity,” was to fight and win, not cut and run.

How does any of this deny the demonstrable fact that no one – no one – was told that the primary reason we were going to “war” was to create a stable and unitary democracy in Iraq and that we would stay there until Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds lay down and play nice with each other. In fact, the sole reference to democracy in Iraq in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq is this:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

So, the American people were supposed to somehow understand that supporting “efforts… to promote the emergence of a democratic government” was actually aa commitment to endless occupation in pursuit of world demokratic revolution? That wouldn’t be credible to future historians, much less those of us who are capable of remember the events of four years ago, especially given that this one reference, buried deep within the measure, came well after scary references to 9/11, nuclear and biological weapons and “Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction”.

Again, Podhoretz the Younger demonstrates a weird grasp of logic, to say nothing of recent history. Post-facto cheerleading for past mission creep is no justification for presently unpopular mission creep, still less is it proof that no such mission creep exists.

Finally, that “moral obligation” cited by Professor Conversino no more exists and binds the American people than Rousseau’s mythical, unsigned “social contract”.

Malkin(s) Watch doesn’t seem to think the issue through:

Vox Day’s column this week laments the shift of the conservative movement to (and its subsequent dry-humping of) The Left, and he finally does what none of us have had the courage to do: Peg down Michelle’s politics with a single label based on a single controversial stance on a nonexistent issue.

Indeed, what with Michelle Malkin pushing FDR’s internment program, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and numerous others pushing Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, Larry Kudlow pushing Richard Nixon’s monetary policies and the editors of National Review harboring a Harry Truman-style crush on the United Nations, one has to wonder if a liberal media is redundant these days.

There you have it. Michelle is a New Deal Democrat because she wants to lock up the undesirables. If this seems a bit farfetched to you (as it does to me), take solace in the fact that you are not a genius like VD. We’ll never get to hang at those hot MENSA orgies. American politics is, like, totally hard to understand.

So, did I miss it when Me So abandoned her pro-war stance and cheerleading for the Wilsonian World Demokratic Revolutia? Has she come out strongly for shutting down Social Security or returning to a gold standard? Does she promote pulling out of the United Nations or does she instead concern herself with who represents us there?

Correct me if I’m wrong, as I don’t read the woman these days, but I’m pretty sure that every single faux conservative stance I cited in this week’s column applies as well to Malkin as it does to Shapiro, Kudlow or NRO’s Lopez.

A liberal is an individual who is upset by the idea that someone, somewhere, might be doing what they want:

And while we’re at it, how dumb does Pennsylvania look for not making helmets mandatory? I heard a state legislator on the radio this morning say that this accident wouldn’t cause him to change his mind. It’s about human rights, he said. Riders should not be forced to wear a helmet.

I’ve got one for you, Mr. Politician. Let’s repeal seat-belt laws, and gun laws, and minimum drinking ages, and let’s just let America be the Wild, Wild West. Do what you want, when you want.

You mean, let’s just let America be free? By all means, I say. And if it is appropriate for politicians passing laws against things that are bad, they should certainly pass a law to forbid the porcine Mr. King from eating what he wants.

Where is the good news? That’s been the constant whine of war cheerleaders practically since the absurd, staged-for-the-cameras toppling of the Hussein statue. I cracked up when I listened to the Fox News anchors rambling on about the historic moment and how they had goosebumps watching approximately 35 Iraqi people performing a very bad reenactment of the Berlin Wall coming down.

Every time the camera pulled back, you could see that there was hardly anyone there; it wasn’t exactly the spontaneous mass movement of the sort that was seen in Berlin.

Anyhow, to ask the question is to completely miss the point. People have been making the same complaint about the local and national news for decades. News is, by functional definition, bad things happening to other people. We may think that Zarqawi getting killed is good news, but in truth, the only reason it is newsworthy is that it gives the media a chance to put another corpse on the cover.

There really isn’t any other practical definition of news, otherwise, we wouldn’t see coverage of a murder in Houston, a flood killing 20 in the Philippines and 20,000 dying in a train wreck in Bangladesh. None of these have any relation to our lives, except, of course, the ghoulish appeal of bad things happening to other people.

This is why it doesn’t matter how many Iraqi kids happily receive candy or how many hospitals and schools are built. No one cares and you can’t sell newspaper or television space by surrounding it with “good news”. There is no such thing as “good news” in the modern media, and the sooner you get that through your head the sooner you can begin to put the news in its proper perspective. Which is to say, ignoring most of it.