I’ve scanned in the pages from the Journal of the Chicago City council from December of 1938, when it added the fourth star for Ft. Dearborn. A couple of interesting notes:
- No mention of a “massacre”.
- The Commission responsible for the recommendation also proposed the installation of the outline of the walls of Ft. Dearborn at Michigan and Wacker.
I should probably eventually go back and pull the record of the appointment of the Fort Dearborn Memorial Commission to figure out why it was appointed in the first place – is this related to veteran’s issues post-WWI?
At The Public Discourse (before launching into a pretty tendentious Natural Law “explanation” of transgender) Carlos D. Flores writes:
Those in favor of transgenderism also (naturally) support gender-reassignment surgery as a perfectly legitimate medical procedure for individuals (including children) with gender dysphoria. Now, put to one side the fact that 70-80 percent of children who report having transgender feelings come to lose such feelings. Ignore, for the moment, the fact that individuals who undergo gender reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. Instead consider the following question: Can we reasonably categorize gender reassignment surgery as a medical procedure in the first place?
A skeptic like myself says, “Twenty times more likely? Sounds fishy.” We click the link, read the underlying study, and find that it states [emphasis added]:
For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit.
I suppose I should commend Flores’ honesty in linking to the study, even though it directly states that it shouldn’t be used for the purpose to which he puts it.
The modern tendency seems to be to identify work with gainful employment; and this is, I maintain, the essential heresy at the back of the great economic fallacy which allows wheat and coffee to be burnt and fish to be used for manure while whole populations stand in need of food. The fallacy being that work is not the expression of man’s creative energy in the service of Society, but only something he does in order to obtain money and leisure.
If man’s fulfilment of his nature is to be found in the full expression of his divine creativeness, then we urgently need a Christian doctrine of work, which shall provide, not only for proper conditions of employment, but also that the work shall be such as a man may do with his whole heart, and that he shall do it for the very work’s sake. But we cannot expect a sacramental attitude to work, while many people are forced, by our evil standard of values, to do work which is a spiritual degradation — a long series of financial trickeries, for example, or the manufacture of vulgar and useless trivialities.
from Creed or Chaos?, by Dorothy L. Sayers (1940).
Dreher has this post on how the “Western world” would react if an African pope is elected. It’s wonderful. There’s this amazing panoply of rhetorical amazingness within. It’s primarily a blockquote of something Mark Shea wrote, wrapped in more fireworks.
First, I love the use of the “how can you claim to be tolerant when you’re actually intolerant of intolerance?” argument, every time it appears. It’s like a wonderful medieval weapon that bashes two heads at once: allowing the wielder to simultaneously criticize someone for being both too tolerant and not tolerant enough. The food is terrible and the portions are too small!
I also enjoy the (quoted) criticism of some (unnamed, hypothetical, imagined) liberals for believing themselves to be superior to both Catholics and “natives of Skull Island doing the Kong Dance”. Nobody’s actually said any of this stuff yet, or ever, or whatever, but might as well start criticizing people for doing it in advance. The problem, in these guys’ minds, isn’t that these Western liberals feel smug, enlightened, and above “primitive savagery and mystical mumbo jumbo” — that appears to be fine. It’s that they lump Catholicism in with real savages. The problem, as Shea identifies it, isn’t smug self-satisfaction, it’s smug self-satisfaction about the wrong people. We’re supposed to feel superior to some people, but not to those people. It’s a great twist on the old intolerance-of-intolerance move: “You say you don’t think you’re better than anyone else, but actually you do think you’re better than anyone else, and what’s more, you’re twice wrong, because actually we, not you, are better than anyone else.”
Instead of having the old argument about who is the best, we get to have like a third-order argument about whether espousing the view that nobody is the best actually implies that I think I am the best.
Billy: I bet my dad can beat up your dad.
Timmy: My dad probably wouldn’t fight your dad. He says that dads shouldn’t get in fistfights with other dads.
Billy: Oh yeah? Your dad thinks he’s better than my dad, huh?
[I’m thinking this might be an even higher-ordered argument. Do I think I’m better than you because my Dad rejects the idea that whether he can beat up your dad is a relevant metric of whether I’m better than you? Head asplodes.]
Then there’s also this reference to Gandhi’s views on contraception, and there’s this intimation that someone’s being inconsistent or irrational by agreeing with Gandhi about non-violence and liberation but not with everything else he espoused. I love the deployment of the thought, but hardly see the relevance. Did his views on the procreative act figure centrally in his life and mission? Did he make the resolution of political or moral questions of contraception the centerpiece or even a minor, ancillary point of his efforts on behalf of peace, freedom, and human dignity? No. As I understand it, Gandhi’s teachings on contraception and marriage were not central to his political acts in the manner that they’ve become central to Roman Catholic politics. It seemed to Gandhi (and I’m willing to be corrected here) that there were more important problems in the world to deal with than “for man to allow his most precious possession to run to waste.” (precious bodily fluids indeed!) It’s perfectly reasonable, rational, and consistent to hold Gandhi up as a very important thinker and excellent model of some saintly virtues without agreeing 100% with everything he said, especially about ancillary issues.
Further, Gandhi’s opposition to contraception isn’t even consistent with Catholic views on the subject. It was his opinion that the sex act has has only the generative and not the unitive function. Here, he even out-Pauls Paul: “Once the idea that the only and grand function of the sexual organ is generation possesses man and woman, union for any other purpose they will hold as criminal waste of the vital fluid and the consequent excitement caused to man and woman as an equally criminal waste of energy” (again with the vital fluids! Is this an ayurvedic medicine thing?) And further, he’s even wrong (as far as Catholics are concerned) about marriage: “Rightly speaking, the true purpose of marriage should be and is intimate friendship and companionship between man and woman. There is in it no room for sexual satisfaction.” So, what is the point Shea is trying to make? And why not make the point by referring to Gandhi’s vegetarianism? Look at all of these half-hearted Westerners who say they idolize Gandhi, but just look at the way they treat cows! I guess they don’t agree with Gandhi that cow protection “is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution.” Well, I wouldn’t get to google for those amazing “vital fluids” comments, so there’s that.
It looks like the “cafeteria” metaphor beloved by conservative Catholics is taking over the world. First, liberal Catholics are not allowed to pick and choose among the Church doctrines, and by extension, now nobody is allowed to pick and choose among the ideas of any thinker. Must I accept Aristotelian cosmology when I advocate for Aristotelian ethics, or risk being called inconsistent and hypocritical? Good heavens, what if I agree with Rod Dreher about the excesses of consumer culture and the baleful influence of corporate power (things he very seldom seems to write about anymore) but disagree with him on whether crawfish are better than shrimp? My whole worldview is shattering!
Pointing out that “[some people] love to idolize [some person], but not to actually listen to [his/her] words when they go against what they want to believe” is applicable to everyone, on all ends of every spectrum of every kind of thought. It’s just so useful.
From Modeled Behavior, again:
Imagine if tomorrow we produced the optimal education system and elevated all workers to their highest and most economic valuable level of human capital possible. Does this mean that we would no longer need immigrants or guest-workers? No, the economy is not a peg-board full of holes called “good jobs” and “bad jobs” that we need a static number of workers to produce. Even if you hold everything fixed, there will be workers elsewhere in the world who at given the current supply and demand for labor in the U.S., and the resulting market wages, will find it optimal to move here and be hired. There will always be employers who find it optimal to hire them. There is no level of domestic education where foreign workers would move here, look around and say, “Gee, all the jobs are taken. I guess they have everything covered here.” and then go home. [emphasis in the original]
Yes, you could write it that way, and it sure sounds like economics. All very rational, understandable, and it certainly sounds inevitable. My economics education is spotty, but I know enough that I’m pretty sure that an economist says “supply and demand” you can replace that obfuscation with “price”, “cost”, or “wage”. And when he says “find it optimal” you can replace that with “reduce costs” or “increase profits”.
So, applying these operations, you get: “Even if you hold everything fixed, there will be workers elsewhere in the world who at given wages in the U.S., will increase their pay by moving here and being hired. There will always be employers who will reduce their costs and increase their profits by hiring them.”
Look, American workers, this is saying, there’s always going to be someone willing to do your job for less money. And your employer is always going to want to pay someone else less money to do your job. Intimated, but not often clearly expressed is that this is both empirical and normative. It’s not just the way things are, it’s the way things are supposed to be. Any sort of economy that wasn’t predicated on everyone attempting to undercut everyone else, well, that would be inefficient. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and that’s the way some folks like it. Makes the data fit the models.