Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
Ginny Richard Fernandez discusses Dostoevsky and abortion, noting that
Fyodor Dostoevsky, speaking through Ivan in his Brothers Karamazov, wrote that the only questions which really mattered were the eternal ones. They are what return in various guises generation after generation not because we can never resolve them, but because we resolve ourselves in them.
My daughter is furious at her geography text; her teacher, she tells us, is ok and more balanced. The book, however, finds much wrong with globalization (and little good) and even more wrong (and less good) with the green revolution. Although she has a quiet strength and has always been concerned with ethics, she has not been impassioned in her teen years as were her sisters. Within the last year, however, she has developed enthusiasms for bands few have heard, for certain styles, and for the free market. This is not because she reads (or cares much about) the blog on which her mother writes but because of a charismatic economics teacher (she took his enthusiasm with some salt, but came to believe he was generally right it fit with her worldview and her belief in self reliance). Lately, she’s bought an appropriate t-shirt, since his were the first books she seemed to really like. Her uncle pioneered no-till practices and Borlaug’s influence (lightly) touches our community. She was not unaware both globalization and the green revolution were complicated and some effects weren’t positive. But she also assumed that over all, life wasn’t a bad result.
I am thankful to Shannon for continuing his prodigal prodding (those words don’t work together very well, do they?) that leads us to define our own agreements with him and sometimes disagreements. Mine keep outgrowing the comments section, so here’s another long-winded response. It has moved from elitism to the last discussions between Shannon & Sean. If you want more of that, hit the key below. If you don’t, don’t. Reminder: this is someone who makes her living in the nebulous (Shannon) or uncertain (Sean) realm of the liberal arts.
“Mrs. Palin’s marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing.” Cathy Young
Re.: Thanks to Jay Manifold’s argument below and link to Young. Heinlein’s women seemed to me (and I wasn’t a fan and read them long, long ago) a bit how a man imagined a strong woman to be. He is no Michelangelo but both capture energy. David’s beauty is power & grace, the swirling power of God awesome. Of course, his women, too, are muscular. But, then, I’ll take Manifold (and Heinlein’s) model I’d like to be someone who pulls her weight. Most women would.
The attraction of Democratic largesse for a woman who wants the government as mate is countered by self-reliance (and family-reliance) when a woman takes a fallible & loving, flesh & blood partner. Governor Palin values her husband, which is not submissive but mature. Franklin’s belief that “God helps them that helps themselves” is seldom more true than in marriage. This understanding eliminates the synthetic and sentimental drama of the Lifetime channel, “women’s issue” politics, and daily bitching sessions that resemble spinning car wheels deep in mud. But that understanding, that engagement not consciousness raising liberates.
Some points:
1.Democrats might begun to understand that looking straight into the camera is counterproductive. We don’t like to feel gamed. Clinton looks at us & says he didn’t have sex with “that” woman; Kerry tells us he’s reporting for duty; Obama says he’s putting country first. We expect politicians to squirm and obfuscate. But we are offended when they become earnest in their pretense; looking us straight in the eye implies a contract. And we know they either don’t understand or don’t care that they aren’t holding up their side of the contract – that it is a lie. (Shannon’s incredibly productive: this reinforces the post he put up while I was writing.)
2. Re. his earlier post: Obama speaks to people that don’t understand because much about our culture discourages what we long considered virtues: integrity, loyalty, duty. All these require putting something or someone’s good ahead of our own. Our customers, our children, our spouse, our community – the point isn’t to game them for our advantage but to enter into an appropriate, sympathetic, productive, and reciprocal relationship. Of course, in some, “appropriate” is hierarchical, in some it includes making a profit. But appropriate still arises from respect. The misunderstanding of this has led to a cynicism and disengagement that permeates our society.