But the conflating (is that a word?) of these headlines just Got My Attention:
White House: "Palin daughter pregnancy is 'private' matter..."
"Father to join Palin family at convention..." (Drudge Report, Sept. 4)
So, which is it to be? Leave 'em alone? Put 'em on display?
I notice nobody has considered even muttering anything about Gasp! Statutory Rape, which appears to have been the case here, depending on the state of the state of Alaska's legal system.
There's something else, and maybe it's the most interesting lesson to learn from this media frenzy. No, not about how the media dives into a frenzied state; we know how predictable that is.
No, what I'm talking about is this interesting dissonance between the support of Candidate Palin for her daughter (admirable) and her support of Abstinence Only programs in schools, knowing full well that they Do Not Work, as here we see. Apparently, abstinence only works if you are, in fact, abstinent! Not surprising, really. There are even sociologist's studies showing, statistically, that AO programs Do Not Work! Just like the storied Just Say No programs do not work. Not surprising, really; one wonders why people have to do a study to show that young people don't do what old people tell them to do! In all of recorded history (including the living memory of old people today), young people who have been told not to have sex; use drugs; smoke; drink... have immediately gone forth and ignored these prohibitions. It's pretty much a given, in fact, that this is what will happen. What I'm seeming to learn from all this, subject to arguments to the contrary, is that there are some who will deliver what to them seems pretty much like the be-all/end-all of moral injucntions without really caring what the result is. There are, in fact, two results. Hint: one of them is Not that the injunction will be followed. The visible results are these:
1: I, who issued the ukase, have Done My Part; if my order is ignored (a given), I am personally blameless - I reserve the right to say I-Told-You_so.
2: My friends (cronys, that is) will be given government funding to present these unfollowed unobeyed unremarked programs. This is, I believe, the Key Point to all this.
Somehow, what used to be known as "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" has been changed into a welfare program for business buddies. In a truly wierd transformation, society is now set up to regulate private behavior, but never, never, no never to regulate public (business) behavior. I can choose the business partner I want, no matter how corrupt or immoral, no matter that the choice has potentially Monstrous Impacts on others; but I cannot chose the personal partner I want, no matter that the choice has absolutely No Impact on others. This is all backwards, to my way of thinking.
White House: "Palin daughter pregnancy is 'private' matter..."
"Father to join Palin family at convention..." (Drudge Report, Sept. 4)
So, which is it to be? Leave 'em alone? Put 'em on display?
I notice nobody has considered even muttering anything about Gasp! Statutory Rape, which appears to have been the case here, depending on the state of the state of Alaska's legal system.
There's something else, and maybe it's the most interesting lesson to learn from this media frenzy. No, not about how the media dives into a frenzied state; we know how predictable that is.
No, what I'm talking about is this interesting dissonance between the support of Candidate Palin for her daughter (admirable) and her support of Abstinence Only programs in schools, knowing full well that they Do Not Work, as here we see. Apparently, abstinence only works if you are, in fact, abstinent! Not surprising, really. There are even sociologist's studies showing, statistically, that AO programs Do Not Work! Just like the storied Just Say No programs do not work. Not surprising, really; one wonders why people have to do a study to show that young people don't do what old people tell them to do! In all of recorded history (including the living memory of old people today), young people who have been told not to have sex; use drugs; smoke; drink... have immediately gone forth and ignored these prohibitions. It's pretty much a given, in fact, that this is what will happen. What I'm seeming to learn from all this, subject to arguments to the contrary, is that there are some who will deliver what to them seems pretty much like the be-all/end-all of moral injucntions without really caring what the result is. There are, in fact, two results. Hint: one of them is Not that the injunction will be followed. The visible results are these:
1: I, who issued the ukase, have Done My Part; if my order is ignored (a given), I am personally blameless - I reserve the right to say I-Told-You_so.
2: My friends (cronys, that is) will be given government funding to present these unfollowed unobeyed unremarked programs. This is, I believe, the Key Point to all this.
Somehow, what used to be known as "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" has been changed into a welfare program for business buddies. In a truly wierd transformation, society is now set up to regulate private behavior, but never, never, no never to regulate public (business) behavior. I can choose the business partner I want, no matter how corrupt or immoral, no matter that the choice has potentially Monstrous Impacts on others; but I cannot chose the personal partner I want, no matter that the choice has absolutely No Impact on others. This is all backwards, to my way of thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment