Another changed mind: Dr. Wafa Sultan

The New Neo Posted on by

Many–if not most–of you have probably heard of Dr. Wafa Sultan by now.

She’s the talk of the blogosphere (try doing a Techorati search and see how many links turn up), a woman of immense courage who’s risked speaking out against the Moslem religion and the uses that have been made of Islam lately. She’s an American and a psychiatrist, born in Syria but living and working in this country.

Dr. Sultan is one of those “moderate Moslems” that many have been seeking, Diogenes-like, and she is nothing if not outspoken. This recent profile in the New York Times caused quite a stir, and she’s received a number of death threats from those who were somehow able to obtain her phone number.

Dr. Sultan’s notoriety began with an interview on Al Jazeera (a partial transcript may be found here) in which she accuses the Moslem religion of oppressing human rights and of religious intolerance. A few quotes:

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[…]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

Not very PC, is Dr. Sultan.

According to the Times profile, Dr. Sultan is writing a book that she believes is “going to turn the Islamic world upside down.” I hope she lives to finish it. Recently she’s been Salman Rushdiezed, and there seems to be a target painted on both her front and her back.

I have a special interest in Dr. Sultan because she’s a “changer,” and a psychiatrist as well. What occasioned her change? Here’s what the Times profile has to say about that:

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith’s strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

“They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, ‘God is great!’ ” she said. “At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god.”

So here we have Sultan’s 9/11, her personal watershed moment, and a very traumatic one it was. She and her husband began to plan to emigrate to America, but the move took them ten years to accomplish.

Recently, as Dr. Sultan’s anger and drive to do something about what she saw happening in the Arab/Moslem world increased, she started writing for this website, “Annaqed.” That, in turn, prompted the invitation to speak on Al Jazeera. Now, as a result, she needs protection from those who would kill her because of what she’s done.

I’ve written earlier about how change sometimes happens quickly and sometimes gradually (see this post, in particular the comments section). Dr. Sultan seems to have been subject to both types. The original sudden shock was her presence at the shooting of her teacher by thugs shouting the name of Allah, but she’s also been evolving more slowly ever since, from private to public figure.

Dr. Sultan is sophisticated and knowledgeable enough about the forces arrayed against her that she must have known what the reaction to her statements on Al Jazeera would be, and so her “coming out” was at grave personal and familial risk. How does a person get such courage (courage which I doubt I’d have, by the way)?

Dr. Sultan’s description of witnessing the murder of her professor certainly explains something, but when you really think about it, it actually doesn’t explain all that much (I’d love to get a chance to interview her and ask a few more questions). That 1979 classroom was full of students, but I doubt many of them had a similar reaction to Dr. Sultan’s.

My hunch is that something in this woman was already primed for a change, and the terrible incident only provided the spark. Granted, it was an especially dramatic and horrific event, and she witnessed it up close and personal, maximizing its impact. The nature of the incident itself–the murder of a professor, representing the forces of knowledge and science, by gunmen invoking the will of Allah–was both a personal tragedy and a metaphor for her present cause. Dr. Sultan, already a medical student at the time, probably had a special scientific and logical bent, as well as an interest in human behavior and motivation, and I imagine that these qualities provided at least part of the impetus for her resultant turn away from strict adherance and blind acceptance of all the tenets of her faith and towards intellectual freedom and the defense of human rights.

But even that doesn’t explain the mysteries of the human heart and mind, the wellsprings from which she draws her formidable bravery. My guess is that some of this is rooted in her relationship to her parents and siblings, and how they may have encouraged her independence of mind, and perhaps her husband as well (he seems to have been supportive right from the first).

And some people just seem to have a deeper integrity than others, and feel driven to speak out no matter what the personal consequences may be. They are heroes of a very special sort.

I recall reading a book some time ago that attempted to analyze those people who made the decision to save or protect Jews in Poland during the Holocaust, at the risk of their lives and those of their families as well. The book, by Nechama Tec, is called When Light Pierced the Darkness,” and I recommend it highly to anyone interested in these questions.

Some of those “savers” were motivated by money and personal gain, some by political dedication (Communists were overrepresented, for example), some by religious faith. There was a significant number, however, who didn’t explain their actions by any of those things, but who seem to have been motivated by something else. I think that same something may be what’s driving Dr. Sultan. And what is that something?

I’m doing this from memory, but I would state it this way: they couldn’t live with themselves if they didn’t act. These people were often a bit puzzled as to their motivations; they couldn’t explain them too well, and seemed to think “anyone else” would have done the same. This of course is demonstrably incorrect; most people did not do the same; most people don’t have the courage. But the ones who do have it appear to have come to some sort of peace with the danger involved, and to have decided that the shame/guilt they would feel about doing nothing is greater than their fear of the consequences of acting. I believe this is what’s going on with Dr. Sultan.

Dr. Sultan is no longer religious, but she has nothing against anyone else practicing religion. Her motivation is human rights and tolerance of all faiths, and she throws down the gauntlet in this exchange from the Al Jazeera interview:

Wafa Sultan: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others’ right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural…

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran…

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

Dr. Sultan knows exactly and precisely what is happening here: she is declaring herself in front of the entire Al Jazeera audience in such a way as to be labeled a heretic and be placed under penalty of death. Her declaration of the Enlightenment creed of personal and religious freedom, “These are personal matters that do not concern you,” is one of the bravest acts I’ve ever seen.

Is Dr. Sultan afraid? She says not, except for worry about the safety of her family back in Syria. The following is the statement of hers that led me to believe that she shares the motivation of those Holocaust rescuers who declared that they simply could not do other than what they’ve done, whatever the personal consequences. Her decision was made some time ago, and now it’s more important for that she speak out than to protect her life or even the lives of her relatives:

“I have no fear,” she said. “I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles.”

I wish the best of luck to Dr. Sultan on her journey; she will undoubtedly need it. Let us all hope (and pray, if we are religious) that she lives a long and productive life; that her message reaches–and touches–those who need to hear it; and that others of her persuasion find the same sort of astounding courage within themselves to speak out, as light pierces the darkness.

Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe: and now it’s time for a little art history

The New Neo Posted on by

No, I’m not becoming a Dean Esmay stalker, or tailgater, or whatever the expression might be, although today’s post was sparked by one of Dean’s, once again.

The subject? Female nudity in popular magazines: to wit, the following cover of Vanity Fair, and what it might mean about our society that this sort of thing is on the newsstands:

I happen to have been at the hairdresser’s the other day, and while there I saw this very cover in the flesh, as it were. What struck me was the photo’s resemblance, in theme although not composition, to the Manet painting “Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe” (probably an excellent indication that I’m both a very dull old person, and not a man).

Here’s Manet’s painting, which I studied back in college. In English, it’s entitled “Luncheon (or Picnic) on the Grass:”

The Manet was shocking in its time, and I think it remains somewhat shocking even today (more so, in a way, than the magazine cover). From the time I first saw it as a young teenager, it has puzzled and mystified me, and apparently I’m not alone.

In the Vanity Fair photo, Scarlett Johansson (the woman lying down) seems to sport a similar expression to the lady on the left of the painting; she gazes at the viewer with cool and utter aplomb. The man in the photo resembles the one on the left of the painting as well, even the shape of his beard and the cut of his slightly nipped-in jacket (although, in the interest of formality, the man in the Manet has kept his tie on, even though the group is outdoors, whereas the magazine man is showing us his chest).

The woman in the painting’s background, in the flowing diaphonous togalike gown, always reminded me of another figure from my youth, the White Rock girl who appeared on the bottles of soda stored in our basement, gazing like Narcissus at her reflection in some small pond.

But what was this all about–surely not selling ginger ale, like Ms. White Rock?

In Manet’s painting, the woman on the left has taken off her clothing, which lies in disarray on the ground to her left, amidst some spilled fruit. The men, however, are fully clothed. Nor does anyone seem the least bit surprised, or even engaged by the situation. In the photo, the man is clearly amorous (or meant to be); in Manet, the men are talking to each other.

It’s not totally clear what Manet meant by the painting, but it is clear he was calling on certain traditional and conventional artistic subjects (female nudes, still lifes) and turning them on their head by modernizing them (something like the Vanity Fair cover, perhaps).

It’s well-known that Manet was referring back to earlier works of art such as this Giorgione entitled “Féªte champéªtre” (Pastoral Concert):

In Giorgione’s work from the early 1500s, the nudes are not only weightier than Manet’s, but more classical:

The female figures in the foreground are the Muses of poetry, their nakedness reveals their divine being. The standing figure pouring water from a glass jar represents the superior tragic poetry, while the seated one holding a flute is the Muse of the less prestigious comedy or pastoral poetry. The well-dressed youth who is playing a lute is the poet of exalted lyricism, while the bareheaded one is an ordinary lyricist.

So we have poetry and lyricism, made manifest as naked women and clothed men with lutes. Here we also see, perhaps, the origins of the diaphanous toga of Manet’s woman-in-the background–and even, perhaps, the White Rock girl of my youth. But Manet has stripped (to coin a phrase) the scene of all its pretense to culture, and that was what was so shocking.

Manet did not set out to shock, though. His actual aim seems to have been to paint modernity. But shock he did. The painting:

…did not bring Manet laurels and accolades. It brought criticism. Critics found Dejuener to be anti-academic and politically suspect and the ensuing fire storm surrounding this painting has made Le Dejeuner sur l’herbe a benchmark in academic discussions of modern art. The nude in Manet’s painting was no nymph, or mythological being…she was a modern Parisian women cast into a contemporary setting with two clothed man. Many found this to be quite vulgar and begged the question “Who’s for lunch?” The critics also had much to say about Manet’s technical abilities. His harsh frontal lighting and elimination of mid tones rocked ideas of traditional academic training. And yet, it is also important to understand that not everyone criticized Manet, for it was also Dejeuner which set the stage for the advent of Impressionism.
…Manet was not a radical artist, such as Courbet; nor was he a bohemian, as the critics had thought. Recently married to Suzanne Leenhoff, the well mannered and well bred Manet was an immaculately groomed member of high society.

And here’s a similar thought, although it seems to have been translated by Babelfish:

Manet, who had an ambition of bourgeois success, will suffer all his life time that his painting, carried out by a great artistic intuition, would only deserve him sulfurous notoriety, but no official recognition.

The painting remains mysterious and ambiguous. But much is known about the identities of Manet’s models:

In reality, all of the figures are based on living identifiable people in Manet’s life. The seated nude was Victiorne Meurand (Manets’ favorite model at the time) and the gentlemen were his brother Eugéne (with cane) and his brother-in-law, the sculpter Ferdinand Leenhof. Manet loved women and in his works, he usually leaves the men’s faces blurred or undefined, their individuality blurred in rhetoric, as dismissible as the “others” in the background. Always one to try to keep within the lines of “accepted” art since he was a semi-important member of society, hence, he left the men clothed….Edouard Manet, himself declared that the chief actor in the painting is the light. The public and critics, guardians of public taste saw only a sketch without the customary “finish.”

Manet also addresses the power of the artist to create reality. The one man’s hand is pointing towards the woman and he is paraphrasing Michelangelo’s “God Creates Man” fresco. He is saying the artist creates reality in the same way that God does. This is the major lesson of Impressionism. Reinterpreted, Manet again says , ‘God created man, but the artist creates Woman’ and may well be the the reason for the candor of model Victorine Meurent’s knowing (yet somehow alienated) gaze. Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, a manifesto of modern painting, has always proven problematic when it comes to critical and historical interpretation. At the time of its succes de scandale at the Salon des Refusés, one critic admitted that he searched “in vain for the meaning” of it. Since that time, various readings have been suggested, none of them definitive. . . The furious outcry it caused as the principal exhibit among the Salon rejects was based on this indecency. One holistic critic, doubtless voicing his own opinion, said,

A commoplace woman of demimonde, as naked as can be, shamelessly lolls between two dandies dressed to the teeth. These latter look like schoolboys on a holiday, perpetuating an outrage to play the man. . . . . This is a young man’s practical joke–a shameful, open sore.

The passage above contains a possible answer to the question of why the men are clothed: depicting the male nude was considered more scandalous. Perhaps this is still true. But I doubt it’s the only reason for the difference.

So, here we have an interesting trajectory: from Giorgione’s allegory in which the sexuality is a subtext, although still present; through Manet’s shocking modernized grouping that refers back to those earlier nudes, but shorn of any pretense of classicism except as a facile reference point. Then, on to the modern photo that is sold on newsstands and overtly meant to titillate, and which has only a vague and very hidden reference to its predecessors. But to me, all three works stand in an unbroken line, and even the last refers all the way back to the first.

Men’s rights and child support: the law is an ass (Part II)

The New Neo Posted on by

I added the following as a comment to the original post on the subject, but I thought I’d highlight it here as well, since it’s a response to points made by many readers in the comments section. This post doesn’t really stand on its own; it relies on the first one and is an expansion of it.

(I want to add, also, that I am rather intensely sympathetic to the problems of both men and women in this area. There’s plenty of sorrow, pain, and injustice to go around.)

Equal protection does not, when last I looked, apply where the valid and actual biological differences between male and female are the basis for the distinction made. Pregnancy is, by definition, one of these biological differences, and in my opinion the distinction here is based on that biological difference. The situation will never be exactly equal for that reason, and cannot be.

Once the woman is pregnant and there is a disagreement between partners about what should be done (the situation we are dealing with here), the following would be the only alternatives for her: bearing the child or having an abortion, and doing either because she chooses it; or bearing the child or having an abortion because she is compelled by another. Given that abortion is presently legal, to allow a man to compel a woman to bear a child against her will is not a good solution in the legal sense. The same would be true, by the way, for forcing her to have an abortion against her will.

For a somewhat (but not totally) analogous situation, there’s a principle in the law of contracts that says that “specific performance” of a contract is not ordinarily enforceable by the law. There are certain things the law will not compel a person to do just because the other person involved in the bargain or the contract wants him/her to do so, even if it was explicitly part of the original agreement. Making things right traditionally involves a money penalty, rather than compelling specific performance.

However, back when the legal system banned abortion, it used to compel the woman to bear a child against her will, although it could not compel her to keep it. (In truth, however, in many cases, women got illegal abortions anyway and did not bear the children in question. But that’s a different issue.)

Now that a woman is allowed to make the choice to have a legal abortion, no one else is allowed to choose for her, not even her husband. Some of you may indeed disagree with that, but IMHO changing that rule would make very bad law indeed, somewhat like compelling specific performance.

The real question is: what is the proper remedy in a case in which the mother bears the child against the biological father’s will, and is asking him to financially support that child? Note, again, that no one can force him to be an involved or caring father; no one can compel him to babysit or have the child live with him (that would be compelling specific performance, once again).

The remedy is financial, as remedies usually are under the civil law: pay child support. And it applies equally to both spouses, as far as I know (legally speaking; in actual practice it’s not always applied so equally). For example, if the unwed father successfully stops a mother from giving a child away for adoption, she is compelled to pay him child support for that child (although she never wanted or expected to), and he is free to raise it. This would be the most analogous situation, in my opinion, the one to which equal protection would apply. The remedy, once again, is financial: she could not be compelled against her will to have anything more to do with the child other than to pay child support.

If one accepts the principle that, for biological reasons, the woman gets to decide the course of her pregnancy, the question remains whether the biological father should be allowed to opt out of paying if she chooses to bear and to keep the child against his will. Under some sort of contract law, one might imagine that, as a penalty, she might have to forego child support because she is going against his expressed wishes about his own child.

But that’s where some sort of strict contract law between the parties (mother and father) does not apply, because the remedy is not to the mother as a party to a contract (real or implied): it’s to the child, who is not a party to any contract made before its conception. Child support is paid to the parent but it’s a right of the child, and is supposed to be applied to the child’s needs only.

For example, let’s say the woman had promised the man that she’d have an abortion if pregnant; an explicit oral contract. But she then changes her mind when actually pregnant and refuses to do. “Specific performance” is not allowed; he can’t force an abortion on her. If contract law were to be applied, and he could prove she had agreed to an abortion and broken her word to him (the “contract”), he might be able to opt out of paying for that child as a sort of financial penalty for her breaking the contract, in lieu of specific performance.

But this is where another overriding principle, the “best interests of the child” comes in. And this, once again, is because the child was not a party to that contract, and the child is the helpless result of the decisions of both these adults, and as such must be protected. It is in society’s interests to protect that child–or so goes the argument–and to compel both parents to support that child financially until it reaches its majority.

So, there is a linked set of decisions: the decision to have sex (and to assume its consequences), in which both take part; the decision to have or not to have the child, which is the woman’s only, for biological reasons; once she decides to have the child, the decision as to whether it will be given up for adoption (and the man has some rights in this matter, to challenge an adoption and keep the child himself); once the decision is made for one or the other parent to keep the child, the decision to pay child support (equal for both parents according to ability to pay), and the decision about coparenting and visitation rights, in which the court is involved if the parties disagree.

Bottom line: there are certain things you can force a person to do legally, and certain things you can’t. There are certain risks you are assumed to have taken on when you engage in certain acts. And there are certain considerations that trump others, according to the law, and are considered best for society as a whole.

[First part here.]

Men’s rights and child support: the law is an ass?

The New Neo Posted on by

Dean Esmay wrote a short post with the following statement that caught my eye:

…I still note with some mild annoyance that apparently it’s okay to loudly proclaim for “a woman’s right to choose,” and evil and wicked and oppressive to say that her right to choose might have limits, that she should use birth control and be more prudent… but if a man doesn’t want to be held fiscally and socially responsible for a woman’s choice for 18 years, he’s an evil scumbag who should keep it in his pants and use birth control and if he doesn’t like it too bad. He made his “choice” when he chose sex. She gets her choice well after the fact, and gets to hold him responsible for her choice whether he likes it or not.

Although I think I understand where Dean is coming from—on the face of it, it certainly seems an unfair situation, doesn’t it?—his words made me take a little stroll down memory lane, along some paths I haven’t visited in quite some time. Thus, this post.

One of the benefits of being a little (just a little!) older is being able to remember when things were very very different, and trying to apply that perspective to the issues of the day. I’m well aware that nothing I say here may convince Dean (or anyone else, for that matter) to see this issue any differently. But please hear me out.

I’ve done a bit of work off and on over the years in the fields of custody, child support, and the rights of fathers and mothers. Way back when I was first learning about this stuff, abortion was illegal, and divorce was granted on fault grounds (adultery, desertion, battery; that sort of thing). In fact, the family law of Massachusetts, the state I knew best, embraced some very strange principles, so strange that when I write about them you may not believe they were operating as recently as the late 60s and early 70s .

In fault divorces one person was the plaintiff and sued the other, alleging a marital offense; the other often countersued and alleged a different offense on the part of the original plaintiff. So the couple wasn’t just suing for a divorce, they were suing to see who would be judged the guilty party and who the innocent one.

Condonation was a possible defense against fault charges, and was defined as:

the act of forgiving one’s spouse who has committed an act of wrongdoing that would constitute a ground for divorce. Condonation generally is proven by living and cohabiting with the spouse after learning that the wrongdoing was committed.

So, to be crystal clear: if spouse A hit spouse B, this would ordinarily constitute a marital offense and B could sue A for divorce and win. But if A could successfully claim that at any time after the blow—even if it was months after—the two had slept together, then B could be denied a fault divorce on these grounds.

Then there was “collusion.” In a state such as New York, for example, adultery was one of the only grounds for divorce, and people often faked adultery in order to obtain a divorce. In those days there was actually a fairly lucrative business trafficking in women whom one could hire to go to a hotel and pretend to have an assignation with the husband for this very purpose.

So, collusion was:

an agreement between two or more persons that one of the parties brings false charges against the other. In a divorce case, the husband and wife may agree to use adultery as a ground in order to obtain a divorce more quickly, knowing full well that adultery was not committed. Collusion is illegal.

Illegal—meaning, if found to have occurred, no divorce.

And then there was a third strange legal principle. Memory fails me (and Google does, too; I can’t find the term anywhere) as to what it was called. But the idea was that if both parties alleged fault on the part of the other, and the court found that both their claims had merit, they could be judged to cancel each other out. Two wrongs apparently could make a right—and then, no divorce.

The utter absurdity of much of this underlines the timeless truth of the famous statement made by Charles Dickens’s character Mr. Bumble, about a different but highly related matter (that the law presumed a wife to be under her husband’s control):

Mr. Brownlow: The law assumes that your wife acts under your direction.

Mr. Bumble: If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that’s the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.

Fault divorce had its—well, it had its faults, to be sure. Now that it has nearly gone the way of the dodo, I don’t think too many people mourn it. At any rate, I’m certainly not one of them. The once-flourishing industry that provided fake mistresses (and real photographers to document the occasion) is no more, as well. But remnants of the old system remain in our family laws, like some sort of vestigial organ.

What was the point of all of this, anyway? The law was thought to have a strong interest in marriage because the institution constituted the bedrock of society and of childrearing. Breaking up a marriage was meant to be difficult, and only to be available under certain quite egregious circumstances. The lack of easy availability of divorce was often painful for everyone involved, and it led to terrible hardship—although, of course, the remedies making it easier have also led to terrible hardship.

I’m not suggesting we go back. But it’s useless to pretend that the law can ever solve the dreadful problems inherent in the fact that people are flawed, love doesn’t always last, and that the children of such unions need to be protected as much as possible from the mistakes of their parents.

The following is an illustration of just how far the law used to be willing to go to protect the children. There was a rule in Massachusetts that all divorces were conditional when granted, and that they only became official six months after the final hearing. The reason? Way back when this rule had been written, there was no way to be certain that a woman wasn’t pregnant at the time of the divorce, and the court didn’t want to make bastards of the children born after the hearing, if in fact the pregnancy had occurred during the marriage. Back in those quaint days, being illegitimate had huge negative ramifications for the child, and the court would go far to prevent a child from being placed in that legal no man’s land.

What’s more, there was another odd and related rule: a man was (and in many cases, still is) “estopped” from claiming he was not the father of any child born of his marriage—that is, conceived within the time frame of the marriage. And this not only included cases in which the child was not in fact his because his wife had had an affair, it included pregnancies that began when he was away from home and could not have possibly been the father.

Talk about lack of father’s rights; a man was (and, as I said, often still is) actually required to support a child that was not his! And why was/is the law being such a dreadful, abominable ass? The rationale behind the idea, archaic though it may seem, was that (a) the rights of a child to be legitimate were paramount, and (b) when you got married, you made your bed and had to lie in it (even if someone else had been lying in it as well).

I am most definitely not saying I approve of such laws. I’m merely trotting them out from the dustbins of memory (and please, let me know if I’m wrong about any of this, because I’m doing this entirely from my own recollection) to illustrate just how far the pendulum has swung in recent years towards protecting the rights of parents versus those of the child.

Yes, with abortion and birth control and divorce on demand and most of the people involved in these cases not ever having been married in the first place, it does seem as though a man should be able to say, “Whoa! I never bargained for this! You got pregnant, you decided not to have an abortion (the solution I would have preferred), you decided to keep the baby. Why should I have to pay for the next eighteen years?”

This is the way it used to be explained, anyway: when two people sleep together, both of them—man and woman—are presumed to assume the risks that go along with the act. And what are these risks?

The first is that every single act of intercourse might end in pregnancy (unless the woman is past menopause, which of course is irrelevant to these cases). Despite birth control, despite assurances that all is taken care of and that it can’t happen, despite whatever people tell themselves and each other, despite truths and despite lies—it’s still possible. And everyone is presumed to know it’s possible. And if they don’t, they very well should.

But all is not equal. By the act of sleeping together (with or without birth control), the man and the woman assume different risks, and there’s no way around some of those differences, because they are rooted in biology. The woman runs the risk of becoming pregnant. Pregnancy means a woman is faced with the associated health risks, which can be considerable; the associated decisions (because—and there’s no way around this—she carries the fetus around within her body) as to whether to bear or not bear the child and whether to keep the child, if borne (if she gives birth and wants to give the baby up for adoption, the father can in many cases sue to block the adoption and raise the child himself. But that’s a different situation than we’re faced with in Dean’s example, in which the father neither wants the child nor wants to pay for it).

In addition to the risks and responsibilities of pregnancy itself, the mother who chooses to give birth and give the child away bears the pain associated with that. And, if she chooses to keep the child and raise it, she—no less than the father—takes on the responsibility of supporting it financially. As custodial parent, she takes on the task of raising it as well, in the emotional sense.

The father takes on a different responsibility, and different risks. He knows he does not have any chance of becoming pregnant (at least that was true when last I checked). But he knows he runs the risk that his partner might, and that if she does she’ll have the right to make the major decisions about that pregnancy. He also knows that, if she happens to decide to keep the baby, he will be required to support it financially, although his emotional connection to it cannot be forced. And he knows, and assumes the risk, that she might even keep the fact of a pregnancy from him, and/or abort the baby without his knowledge.

That’s a lot of freight associated with one act of sex, isn’t it? Not too many people think about it that way—and, to be realistic, they probably never will. It’s perhaps the very last thing most young people think of when they hop into bed together.

But the law doesn’t really care; it’s that much of an ass, and a party pooper as well. Because the law still contains that remnant—that vestigial organ, as it were—of being more interested in the welfare of the child than the rights of either parent.

You may disagree with the results—I don’t like the results all that much myself. But my observation is that there’s no good solution and probably never will be, human nature being what it is. And the law we’ve got right now is as good as any I can come up with, I’m afraid—even though it may still be an ass.

[NOTE 1: For all you English majors out there: yes, I know the original quote is “The law is a ass.”]

[NOTE 2: In my research, I found this unrelated NY Times article with the amusing title “If the law is an ass, the law professor is a donkey,” about the prevalence of Democratic professors in law schools.]

First sign of spring: ice cream in New England

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night, as I was driving home at 7 PM in the dark and the cold, I saw some lights up ahead where there hadn’t been any lights for a while. It took a moment for it to penetrate my brain: the local ice cream stand had opened for the season.

One of the sure signs of winter’s approach—right after the brilliantly-colored leaves have finished falling and the barren landscape has turned some monochrome neutral color that defies description—is the annual closing of that ice cream stand. It gets boarded up, and a sad little sign appears saying, “See you next spring!”

The lobster restaurant—the one that boasts the panoramic view of the cliffs and the waves, with just a few tables inside but a host of them outside—shuts down, too. The summer crowds have slowly thinned out, the tourists fade away, and finally, it’s time. Even the gulls that usually hang around each summer evening, waiting for the leavings and the spoils (and sometimes not even waiting, but boldly grabbing a fried clam from a paper plate while the owner’s back is turned for a moment)—even the gulls have gone somewhere else. And the owners probably go south to Florida for a well-earned (and very well-financed) rest.

But like those Capistrano swallows, like the monarch butterflies, like the grass in my lawn that looks as though it’ll never grow again, brown and flat and scraped down to the dirt in spots by the marauding snow plow, it all returns in springtime (although not all at once).

I don’t know why the ice cream stand comes first, but it does. It’s always a shock to see it happen, because it opens in a season that’s really quite indistinguishable from winter—in fact, it is winter. Last night the thermometer in my car read thirty-five degrees when I passed by, and it actually felt colder outside because there was a bit of a wind, and it was so dark.

But that didn’t stop the intrepid customers who formed a line to wait there for their frozen confections: the soft serve and the hard, the sundaes and the shakes, the whatever it was they’d been craving and really could have gotten elsewhere inside an actual heated building. But it wouldn’t be the same, would it? If you can buy your ice cream at a stand, it means that spring actually does begin in March (I never have quite understood why it starts then; I know it has to do with the sun, but even in New York the first day of spring never felt springlike).

So, what’s up with New Englanders and ice cream? When I first moved to New England (Boston) many moons ago, I quickly noticed the ice cream stores that dotted the landscape, far more than I could ever remember seeing anywhere else, somewhat like coffee shops in Seattle (except, of course, I wouldn’t have used that comparison, because those came later). I was told that New England has the highest per capita consumption of ice cream in the nation.

Think about it. Not the South, not California: New England, the coldest part of the continental US. It makes no sense, but it appears to be true. Even Harvard Business School says so:

New England has the highest consumption of ice cream per capita in the U.S….Some experts argue that the large student population in the area drives demand. Others believe the ice cream tradition in New England is strong since the 18th Century when Nancy Johnson invented the first ice cream churn, which led to its mass production. Regardless of what the reasons might be, one thing is clear: New Englanders are obsessed with this frozen treat.

Nowadays, with modern refrigeration and tools, it’s relatively easy to make ice cream. We forget that, back when ice cream was a great and rare delicacy, it required a lot of real ice and a great deal of hand churning to create the dish. Perhaps that’s the secret to how ice cream got such a firm grip on the palates of New Englanders, and became a tradition—in those pre-Alaska days, nowhere in the US was it easier to get ice than here.

In fact, ice itself was a huge and important industry in New England in the 1800s. Here’s a website devoted to the lore of this now mostly-forgotten industry:

Harvesting natural ice became big business in New England during the 19th century. The birth of America’s large scale commercial ice industry began in New England in 1805. Frederick Tudor, a Boston merchant, created the first natural ice business in the United States. He shipped ice harvested on a pond in Lynn Massachusetts to the West Indies. Over the next thirty years Tudor made a fortune shipping ice around the world to places like Charleston, New Orleans, Cuba, Calcutta, South America, China and England. British records show that Queen Victoria purchased some ice from Massachusetts in the 1840’s.

New England ice in Calcutta. Not the sort of thing one would expect, back in the 1800s, before the days of Fedex and dry ice.

And the beginning of the death knell of the ice industry was sounded by a New Englander, too:

In 1834, Jacob Perkins of Newburyport, Massachusetts obtained a British patent for making artificial ice. He built a machine capable of producing ice in quantity by vaporization.

In my childhood my mother still referred to the refrigerator as the “icebox,” a relic from her own youth, when it was exactly that. We don’t have iceboxes any more, we have freezer-above or freezer-below (my personal favorite) or side-by-side or Subzero ice drawers (I don’t know anyone who actually has them, although they apparently do exist). But we have a relic of those times—at least, I like to think so—in these long lines of New Englanders, braving the cold to toast the long-anticipated return of spring with some ice cream.

Cry havoc: binding up the dogs of war

The New Neo Posted on by

He’s done it again; here’s a must-read post from Wretchard of Belmont Club.

It was sparked by an article by Robert Kaplan appearing in the Atlantic (subscribers only), entitled “The Coming Normalcy.” This, in turn, was a sequel to an earlier article by Kaplan that appeared twelve years ago in the same venue, entitled “The Coming Anarchy.”

The theme of the earlier article was:

…the institutional collapse of Third World countries owing to ethnic and sectarian rivalries, demographic and environmental stresses, and the growing interrelationship between war and crime.

In his new piece Kaplan is revisiting these issues in light of what has happened in Iraq so far. Since I don’t have access to the new article, I went back and skimmed the old one, which I recall reading a couple of years ago. A great deal of it is about Africa and about the role of future environmental pressures causing further societal meltdowns. This may all come to pass, but it’s not the subject at hand.

These predictive bits were interesting in light of later developments:

[W]ar-making entities will no longer be restricted to a specific territory. Loose and shadowy organisms such as Islamic terrorist organizations suggest why borders will mean increasingly little and sedimentary layers of tribalistic identity and control will mean more. “From the vantage point of the present, there appears every prospect that religious . . . fanaticisms will play a larger role in the motivation of armed conflict” in the West than at any time “for the last 300 years,” Van Creveld writes….

[T]echnology will be used toward primitive ends. In Liberia the guerrilla leader Prince Johnson didn’t just cut off the ears of President Samuel Doe before Doe was tortured to death in 1990–Johnson made a video of it, which has circulated throughout West Africa…

Sound familiar? It certainly did to me.

The thrust of Kaplan’s new article and Wretchard’s post is the question of how to tackle the problem of anarchy in societies and in nations. Although twelve years ago Kaplan saw the situation as very dark, he now sees at least a tiny glimmer of light.

Most people, of course, see the war in Iraq as evidence of increasing anarchy, whereas Kaplan sees it as a release of anarchic forces that have existed for a long time but were previously contained only by the strong and vicious arm of another pernicious force, a tyrannical dictator (in this case, Saddam). Now, finally, we are actually trying to counter those forces of anarchy; not an easy task, to say the least.

“Rebuilding” Iraq differs from, and may be more difficult than, rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII. It seems to me that it may have been easier to counter the forces of the latter–political opinions that had been tried and proven wanting, and a population exhausted from fighting and virtually out of ammunition but which had a previous tradition of being law-abiding and cohesive–than it ever would be to counter the forces of societal anarchy in a country such as Iraq, which has been spiraling down for quite some time now, and was never cohesive as a country to begin with.

I remember reading, prior to the Iraq War, that Saddam had released the criminals from his jails. It increased my sense of grave foreboding; Saddam seemed to be saying, “Cry ‘havoc!’ and let loose the dogs of war.”

Havoc. Definition: “widespread destruction; devastation; disorder or chaos.” Unfortunately Saddam had plenty of time during the long buildup prior to the war to plot his course and intentionally amplify havoc (which was increased post-war by the actions of neighbors such as Iran and Syria). But chaos and anarchy were simmering under the surface anyway, and their extent was probably underestimated.

It puts me in mind of the end of the Soviet Union. Back in those days, when I didn’t spend so much time thinking about politics, events there caught my attention nevertheless. When the Soviet Union fell in such a surprising and sudden way, a fair amount of anarchy ensued rather than the more hopeful visions of the future that many had shared. Crime, for instance, had never been a problem in Soviet Russia; now it was a huge and even sometimes controlling factor.

When I thought about it, I went back to my college days as a student of anthropology (yes, I had a minor in anthropology as well as that major in psychology. Just a touchy-feely type, after all). The idea was that, once a society becomes chaotic, it’s a Humpty-Dumpty situation: very difficult to go back and put that smashed egg together again.

But in Iraq, and in Russia before it, the egg was apparently quite broken to begin with. Totalitarian regimes are often both a response to a situation that is somewhat chaotic already (that is how many dictators come to rule) and, as time goes on, a means of increasing the underlying chaos while appearing to contain it. But, as we’ve learned over and over again, that appearance is illusory and temporary.

What are some of the ways dictatorships increase the tendency towards the breakdown of societal cohesiveness, and increase underlying chaos? By stifling initiative and murdering those who show it, or who show bravery and the willingness to speak out; by dismantling local governmental and cultural institutions and replacing them with top-down bureaucracies; and also by fostering suspicion, fear, bottled rage, and the desire for revenge.

So Iraq was already broken, as is much of the third world today. And into the breach has marched a criminal element, as it did in Russia back in the early 90s.

We should not underestimate the prevalence and influence of crime and criminals in the so-called “insurgency.” As Wretchard writes:

Kaplan describes how much of what passes for an insurgency is actually crime which had escaped the modus vivendi it had enjoyed under Saddam but had now been dislocated from its old containing vessel. Reining in this chaos meant constructing a new order to replace Saddam’s.

Here, for example, is how it works in Iraq:

“You’re dealing with a gang mentality,” explained Captain Phillip Mann of Antioch, California, a thirty-two-year-old intelligence officer and graduate of Fresno State University. “There is a pool of young men in Mosul without jobs who sell drugs, and do kidnappings. With a high inflation rate and little economy, being an insurgent pays. You’ve got to make the insurgency a very unattractive profession to these people, who are not motivated by religious ideology.”

And here’s the solution, or at least part of the solution:

“We’ve adopted a gang-tackle approach,” Mann went on. “If we get shot at, like in Palestine [a retirement community for former regime generals in southeast Mosul, which supported the insurgents], we surround the area and go house to house, every time. We keep doing this till people get tired and start helping us. Our message: ”˜We don’t give in””we’re not going away, so work with us.’

According to Wretchard, it’s not just Bush’s fault that our present tools are not always effective in dealing with these problems:

One of Kaplan’s recurring assertions in The Coming Normalcy is that the American shortcomings for dealing with situations like Iraq — which he views as prototypical of an anarchic Third World society — go far beyond any defects in planning for the invasion of Iraq peculiar to the Bush administration. In Kaplan’s view the long-established bureaucratic instruments are simply structured wrongly: they are too monolithic and uncoordinated to effectively transform any typical anarchy into democratic order. He thinks the armed forces, whose lives are at stake, have adapted most by pushing responsibility downward to the brigade rather than the divisional level. “Flattening” the decision-making and intelligence cycle process has helped the Army and Marines get on top of the military aspects of the insurgency, but it hasn’t helped reconstruction much. Everywhere he went, soldiers and Marines asked, ‘where is USAID, where is the State Department?’ And the answer unfortunately, was that neither USAID nor the State Department had the money or the bureaucratic configuration to fight a joint battle with the military against the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq.

I can’t improve on the way Wretchard has phrased it, so I’ll quote him (emphasis mine}:

Saddamite Iraq, like most terrorist-supporting states threatening the world today, are like the landscape of 1812 in that they were cauldrons of anarchy given a semblance of shape by fragile, yet brutal shroud-like states… after September 11 the problem grew too big to ignore, yet the question of how to destroy anarchy, already by definition in a shambles, remained…

It would be a serious mistake to think that the problem of confronting national security threats within the context of anarchy is limited to Iraq . Iraq is simply where the West must come to grips with The Coming Anarchy because it cannot step around it. And it is not the only place. An earlier post noted how the eviction of the Taliban from Afghanistan has simply shifted the fighting to Pakistan, the country in which the Taliban was first born. The real metric in any war against rogue “states” will not be the reduction of strongpoints, like Tora-bora given such prominence by the media, but the reduction of anarchy which constitutes their energy core.

The answer–the long, hard slog of an answer, although it only takes a sentence of Wretchard’s to state–is, “learning how to use force to allow indigenous order to emerge.”

This, to me, was always the goal of the Iraq War, and the war on terror as a whole. It’s why I have never seen it as a police action, as do those who believe we just need to go after Al Qaeda and Osama and all will be well again.

Perhaps, in the end, that’s the greatest difference between those who are hawkish on this war and those who oppose it: the former believe the unleashed chaos was not avoidable, and needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later, because dealing with it was inevitable and waiting would only allow those forces to build. The latter didn’t see the problem as systemic or deep, and thought the best approach was piecemeal, sporadic, and should be more or less in line with previous policy but a bit intensified. Those on the left who were against the war thought that any chaos involved was the fault of our government and its actions, and that we had created and were responsible for it. Those on the right who were against the war felt that taking the lid off would be a cure worse than the disease.

In the end, one’s position on the matter probably depends on how one diagnoses the disease. Was it a small set of carbuncles that could be easily lanced (police action), or a chronic illness that just needed some intervention here and there but nothing drastic (isolationist and/or realpolitik)? Or was it a lethal illness that had probably already metastasized, and needed a strong dose of powerful and dangerous medicine to have any hope of cure (neocon, interventionist)?

On September 11, it became to me for the first time–although in retrospect it should have been clear far earlier–that havoc was abroad, and the dogs of war had been loosed. I believed then, and still believe now, that binding them up was going to be a long, hard, difficult, and worldwide effort, one with many hazards along the way, one that would not be perfectly executed–and one that would have to confront the underlying problem of chaos and failed states if it ever was going to be successful.

Sad, sad news: Dana Reeve dies

The New Neo Posted on by

This extremely sad news greeted me when I went to Yahoo to check my email today: “Christopher Reeve’s Widow Dies at Age 44.”

I can’t say I followed the entire saga of the Reeve family all that closely, but I certainly knew the basic facts, and I knew that Dana Reeve was diagnosed with lung cancer not that long after her husband’s death, and that they had a young child. When I read the news today of her death, my first thought was of him and how much profound tragedy he’s had to deal with already in his young life.

Yes, his parents loved him, and yes, they gave him an example of extraordinary courage in their all-too-shortened lives. I’m sure there are relatives who will take him in, and his mother certainly had a lot of time to plan for that and to prepare him as best she could.

But something like this cannot be prepared for, not really.

I know there are worse tragedies on the face of the earth than this, but this one is bad enough. Having watched the family over the years, and admired the classy bravery of this woman, it made my stomach sink when I read the news.

On another note, notice the article’s repeated insistence on the fact that Dana was not a smoker, despite her lung cancer. This seemed important to the writer to state, and I suppose it is.

But I sense a certain subtle subtext here: the notion that we might somehow control our health if we just do it right, if we follow all the rules. There’s a certain smugness, and a whistling in the dark–because of course, as in the old clichés, no one gets out of here alive, and shit happens. Do only the good die young? No, of course not. But we certainly notice it when they do.

And we like to think we have more control over things than is the case. Yes, indeed, smoking is a huge cause of lung cancer, and I applaud everyone who manages to quit and discourage anyone from starting. But it’s not easy for lifelong smokers to stop, not at all.

I have perhaps a special interest in this story because I have a female relative who is currently fighting lung cancer, a woman in her fifties who smoked a long time ago and quit a long time ago, with only the occasional cigarette in recent decades. What category does she fall into: smoker, nonsmoker, hybrid? I refuse to condemn her in any way, or blame her. I simply offer her my love, my prayers, my support, and my hope that she licks this thing.

In praise of spam

The New Neo Posted on by

Whatever could be good about spam?

No, not that kind, this kind. The kind I remember not all that fondly from my youth, when every home (including mine) sported a few cans in the cupboard.

In my house, they were placed up high, where I couldn’t reach them–not that I ever wanted to. I’d eaten Spam a few times and found it somewhat wanting, although I wasn’t exactly a toddler gourmet (baloney on Wonder Bread, I seem to recall, was my idea of Awfully Good. And Kraft dinner–macaroni and cheese–my absolute favorite).

Spam has become a pejorative. But if you follow the link you’ll find that during WWII it was a lifesaver, literally. In fact, it may have been responsible for Hitler’s defeat.

What am I talking about? Have I taken leave of my senses? Well, see here:

Nikita Krushchev once credited SPAM with the survival of the WWII Russian army. ”Without SPAM, we wouldn’t have been able to feed our army,” he said.

And it’s not only the survival of the Russian army. It may be the secret to the survival of none other than Robert Byrd (although, with its approximately 82% fat content, it’s a bit hard to see how):

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia eats a sandwich of SPAM and mayonnaise on white bread three times a week.

That’s a lotta Spam. More, even, than I got here before I installed Blogger’s word verification system in my comments section.

Other Spam facts of interest: developed in 1926, it was the first canned meat product that didn’t require refrigeration. But it didn’t take off until 1937, when its old name (“Hormel Spiced Meat”) was changed, as the result of a contest, to the winning classic, “Spam.”

The rest, as they say, is history.

The skinny on the Oscars

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, I watched the Oscars last night, at least intermittently, although I probably wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been invited to a party where Oscar-watching was the stated activity.

And I just need to say this: what’s up with the starvation thing? The women in Hollywood have always been pretty slim, but this is getting ridiculous. For the most part, they looked ghastly and skeletal.

And what’s with the rags, and the bows on the shoulder the size of mini-me?

And please, olive green doesn’t suit hardly anybody, especially for evening wear.

My favorite blog remark on the proceedings was this one:

Manolo loves the Dolly Parton! Even if she is slowly being carved into the simalacrum of Joan Rivers.

Dolly, you’ve jumped the shark, I’m afraid. Please eat something, and stay away from Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon.

Why don’t I write about (take your pick)

The New Neo Posted on by

I often get emails or comments asking me why don’t I write about this or that or the other topic. Every now and then I do take people up on one of these suggestions (for example, this post was written after someone recommended the article in question to me). So I’m not trying to discourage suggestions; not at all. But I only write about things that happen to interest me. I’m funny that way.

A different kettle of fish entirely are comments that challenge me in a very hostile way to take up a certain topic. I get such “requests” rather frequently. They remind me a bit of being called out for a duel; I expect to see the seconds come around any minute with the pistols. There’s certain macho quality of “I dare you, and if you don’t take me up on it, I feel free to consider you to have conceded my point by inaction.”

Same answer to those challengers: if interested, I write. If not, I don’t. It’s really quite simple.

I’m not here on assignment. That’s one of the nice things about blogging, as opposed to being a journalist or a student: I really only have to write about what I happen to want to write about.

Oh, some topics are more exciting than others. Sometimes I think I’m interested in writing about something and then run out of steam halfway. Some of those posts never see the cyberlight of day; some do.

I often don’t quite know where a post is going when I begin it; sometimes it’s only at the end that things come clear (or at least as clear as they’re ever going to get). But I usually start out with an idea, or a series of linking ideas (often a great rush of them), or a question, or a mystery. There’s some sort of spark, some “aha!” or “hmmm, I wonder” moment that begins the whole thing. I find myself writing on those little notepapers, and/or ruminating while doing other things (especially exercising). A little monologue starts in the brain, and sometimes it can be quite insistent and demanding.

You may have noticed I don’t always write on the topic du jour. I like to do research and look at things in-depth, and I’m especially interested in stories of change. I like to look at things broadly and make connections, sometimes even in ways that (if I may say so) are surprising and original (I think those are often my favorites, although they can be hard to write). I enjoy uncovering some piece of history and trying to connect it to things that are happening today.

So when I get an e-mail asking me why don’t I write about such and such–for example, the port controversy–my answer is that I don’t write about certain things because they just don’t grab me. That’s not to say they’re not important, or that I have absolutely nothing to say about them. It’s just that it all takes a lot of time and effort to research, and I have to feel some sort of inspiration to do so–and, more importantly, I need to believe I have something fresh or unusual or personal or meaningful to say about it.

About that port controversy, I don’t. And it’s not a topic that’s exactly been crying out for want of attention. Nearly every aspect of it has been aired in the MSM and on the blogs, and I just don’t have anything to add that seems worth taking the trouble to say. I’ve read on both sides and, although at first I was against the deal, I now see some decent arguments that go in the other direction.

So, I’m skipping it–and many many other stories as well. I’m not running a wire service, and I’m not a newspaper trying to give readers an overview of everything that’s happening. I’m not even Instapundit, although sometimes I wish I were.

I walk fast for exercise, and if the weather’s not good I go to the health club and use the treadmill. It seems very conducive to thinking about the posts that do interest me. It’s almost as though my thoughts go round as though they’re on a treadmill, too (the treadmills of your mind?–I song I’ve never liked, by the way). When that happens, I know I’ve got my topic. All I have to do is write it.

[ADDENDUM: Dean Esmay, same subject.]

The left and the US: blaming the parent

The New Neo Posted on by

There are certain themes I keep coming back to, and one has to do with the mindset of liberals and those on the left (different, but at times related). It may seem to be an obsession of sorts, but I don’t think so–it’s just something that I encounter a lot, both in my “real” life and in the comments section here.

Many aspects of this mindset continue to puzzle me–like the old Beatles lyric, I could say about the left and liberals, “I thought I knew you; what did I know.”

So, in the constant and ever-evolving attempt to Understand Them (old habits die hard), I wanted to quote a note I received from Marc Danziger, Armed Liberal of Winds of Change, on the topic of why the left seems to act as though the US is the font of all evil:

I’ve thought for a while that this was a form (forgive me for stepping on your turf) of narcissism – they think that we (our culture, the West) are so powerful that we are, in effect, omnipotent. So of course we can get the bad guys without hurting them; of course we need rules to contain our strength. Because we’re so strong that everything that happens anywhere in the world is a reflection of something we do or have done.

I’m sure all of this ties into things I–or Dr. Sanity, or Shrinkwrapped, or SC&A, all of us psychobloggers–have written before. I’m too lazy to search for the links right now, but I’m hoping you’ll take my word for it.

What Armed Liberal says is correct, and at the risk of repeating myself I’d like to say it also reminds me of the relation of a child to parent. To the child, the parent is omnipotent, and perfection is demanded and easily achievable. Everything that goes wrong must be the parent’s fault, that much is clear; otherwise, the world would become a much more frightening place.

Because the truth is that if the parent is not omnipotent, or can’t ever become perfect, then the child is exposed to truly frightening dangers that he/she is unequipped to handle. So it’s far better to preserve the myth of parental omnipotence and perfection, and to get angry at a parent who, after all, (at least ordinarily, in the absence of major pathology) loves the child and is not about to retaliate harshly against that child.

The child knows the parent is strong enough to absorb the blow, so it’s safe to direct the blame and the anger where it won’t be dangerous to do so (if the US were really as bad as extreme leftists say, they’d all be in jail or worse). It’s a win-win situation for the child, who gets to “vent,” and to feel that the world isn’t such a dangerous place, knowing the parent will not strike back and harm the child.

I’m not saying leftists–or those liberals who join the “blame America first, often, loudly, and last” chorus–are children. They are not. But in their relationship to their own government they seem to be acting out a similar dynamic.