Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Archive for March, 2006

    We Support the Troops, Really

    Posted by Shannon Love on 22nd March 2006 (All posts by )

    I’m trying to figure out if the people at are malicious or just stupid.

    Their homepage looks like somebody decrying what they consider the pointless deaths of US military service people in Iraq. Fair enough. However, I found two other pages while Googling for Clayton Henson, the half-brother of my cousin, who died in Iraq.

    The first page is a fake news story about people selling bread on eBay with the faces of those fallen in Iraq toasted in. The second page is a fake news story about Terri Schiavo being kissed by her mother with faces of the fallen photoshopped in.

    Someone spent quite a bit of time doing this. Did they think this was funny? Profound? What?

    I look at Clayton’s face photoshopped onto a piece of toast and I wonder what the “artist” thinks I should experience besides anger and disgust. Did they think for a moment how the families of the dead would feel to see their loved one’s image turned into incompetent kitsch? Did they seriously think that anyone would think this was respectful in the least?

    It is so hard to credit such people with good faith. It’s hard to grasp that anyone would could be so stupid as to think this was an honest and respectful way to protest the deaths of service people. Hatred and arrogance seem so much more likely explanations.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

    The Party for America Suckers, Exhibit A

    Posted by Shannon Love on 22nd March 2006 (All posts by )

    karennkg was kind enough to post a comment to Jay Manifold’s post KCStaralaunche about my post The party for America Suckers. She even sent me a little email in case I missed it.

    After reading her comments I began to feel a little “fisky” so here is my reply.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Politics | 14 Comments »

    Good Thing He Doesn’t Run the Show

    Posted by demimasque on 22nd March 2006 (All posts by )

    Oskar Lafontaine, a German politician of the Left, has weighed in on the definition of “terrorism”: Herr Lafontaine asserts that “terrorism is the killing of innocent people to achieve political objectives”. By this definition, certainly, the men who turned jetliners into weapons on September 11 are terrorists. Herr Lafontaine concedes this. But, by the same token, he argues that “Americans are also terrorists when they bomb cities and villages in Afghanistan (and) Iraq and kill tens-of-thousands of innocents.”

    There is, of course, a consistency here, something different from blind anti-Americanism. It is a consistency born of a simple moral absolutism: All killing is wrong. Of course, it isn’t quite that simple. It is modified in that only the killing of innocents is to be considered terrorism. This means that any time collateral damage occurs, the actor who caused such damage is to be regarded a terrorist, regardless of the lengths taken to avoid it.

    The refreshing thing about this, of course, is that it’s not quite moral relativism: It is moral equivalence. The only way to avoid ever becoming a terrorist, then, is for a state actor never to act at all. This is, essentially, a strict liability view of the world: It matters not what your intentions were; if some innocent somewhere dies, and the proximate cause is your action, you are automatically a terrorist.

    Yes, it’s easy to ride the moral high horse when you’re not in charge. The fact that Herr Lafontaine has no real power whatsoever is a testament to the limits of such a position among even the cynical German electorate.

    (Hat-tip: Davids Medienkritik)

    [Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

    Posted in International Affairs | 4 Comments »

    The Land without a Heart

    Posted by Mitch Townsend on 21st March 2006 (All posts by )

    From The Land without a Heart by A. E. Johann

    It was not the goal of this book to discuss whether America can win the war, or whether it must lose it. But perhaps it has become clear —and that was my goal — that America does not deserve to win the war and spread its system over the entire world. There is nothing in the American system worth imitating, either for Germany or Europe. If Americanism conquered the world, it would mean the end of all human values and of genuine freedom — the freedom to do something, not from something! — of all the values for which Europe has fought and suffered for millennia, for which it has given all its strength of body and soul.

    No European could exchange places with an American. America is a pitiable country and the Americans are a betrayed people, betrayed by their leaders…

    From Europe and America:
    Failures in Building an American People

    The ideal of eternal success is a grave danger to a people’s morality. The result is that in the USA, people are valued only according to their success, ignoring all other measures. Such a view of life inevitably must attract materialistically-oriented people. The USA was their place.

    Even before the World War, efforts were made to teach the “aliens” the language and ways of thinking of the country. Courses in Americanism included not only the language and government, but also attempted to build American national pride. This resulted in the desire for records and gigantomania that always amuses us. Lacking a significant political and intellectual history, the American is forced to build his national pride on technology.

    Customs were another leading factor. The immigrants sought to adapt to them as rapidly as possible to avoid standing out. The growing standardization of life reached such an extent in the USA that independence became impossible. Everyone wears the same clothes, and thinking like everyone else is a duty. In contrast to Europe’s variety, this seems odd to us, but we should not forget that uniformity is about the only way Americans can experience community. This process of Americanization was successful, but also superficial. A type developed, but not a people.

    Randall Bytwerk, Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan (USA), maintains an archive of Nazi and Communist propaganda from Germany. Both pieces were published in 1942, but they could have been written yesterday, and not necessarily in German.

    Posted in Anti-Americanism | 13 Comments »

    The Wisdom of the People

    Posted by Shannon Love on 21st March 2006 (All posts by )

    Jane Galt asks:

    If your conception of the public good is served by, for example, hiding the economic cost of your program from the majority of American voters by making it a (lousy, inefficient) tax credit, instead of paying for it out of tax revenue, then in what way is your idea of the public good compatible with a democratic vision?

    Jane asks how people who claim to honestly believe in democracy — i.e., the fundamental wisdom of the people — can reconcile tricking people into voting for programs by the use of adroit marketing. If someone really trusts the people why doesn’t he just lay it all out on the line? She thinks the fact that someone doesn’t feel comfortable telling people the raw truth indicates he doesn’t have a strong commitment to democracy.

    I think there is a flip side to this observation. I think that if the people won’t vote for an idea when they really understand it, that probably means the idea isn’t a very good one.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Political Philosophy | 9 Comments »

    Know Your Household Pests (Chapter 24): Balloons

    Posted by Jonathan on 20th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Serious Infestation

    Posted in Humor | 8 Comments »

    Pinker Meets Ayn Rand

    Posted by Ginny on 19th March 2006 (All posts by )

    A&E’s weekend links include Craig Lambert’s “Marketplace of Perceptions.” About anyone on here has a better context for his essay, but it combines two approaches we often discuss: a) the importance of free decisions by rational people about matters that affect them coupled with b) our ongoing interest in the effect of biology on such decisions. He concludes:

    It’s a question that behavioral economics raises, and, with luck, may also be able to address. The eclipse of hyper-rational Economic Man opens the way for a richer and more realistic model of the human being in the marketplace, where the brain, with all its ancient instincts and vulnerabilities, can be both predator and prey. Our irrationalities, our emotional hot-buttons, are likely to persist, but knowing what they are may allow us to account for them and even, like Odysseus, outwit temptation. The models of behavioral economics could help design a society with more compassion for creatures whose strengths and weaknesses evolved in much simpler conditions. After all, “The world we live in,” Laibson says, “is an institutional response to our biology.”

    For one thing, I suspect the tension described in Lambert’s article is one that can help us define “manliness” better than chatter about low voices & feminist equity; we tend to admire objectivity, rationality as manly.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »


    Posted by Jay Manifold on 19th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Shannon’s The Party for America Suckers is quoted in “Blog Bits,” a feature within “What Others Are Saying” in the editorial section of today’s Kansas City Star; it appears on page B 7 of the dead-tree edition. The only other Blog Bit this week is something from Richard Posner at

    Posted in Blogging | 17 Comments »

    What is wrong with the European Union?

    Posted by Helen on 19th March 2006 (All posts by )

    What a silly question, you might say. Would it not be easier to ask what is right with the European Union? It would take considerably less time to enumerate. However, I should like to go to the very nub of it: its idea of governance.

    One talks much of the way legislation and regulations are passed in the European Union with the peoples and legislatures of various member states being presented with a fait accompli and an assurance that nothing can be done to reverse European legislation.

    We also know that the process of legislation and amendment of legislation is so cumbersome and secretive that achieving changes is well nigh impossible.

    Most of all, we know that the legislative programme of the EU pays no attention to elections either within member states or, even, to the European Parliament; nor does it pay attention to changes in the Commission. Legislative plans are laid out for five or ten years; the Commission’s work programme is decided every year; the process goes on regardless of any democratic or constitutional developments.

    Over and above that there is the problem of the Opposition. The European Union and its supporters do not acknowledge its right to exist. This was summed up very neatly by Professor Jeremy Black in his latest book: The European Question and the National Interest. Writing about the response to the two negative referendum results last year, in France and the Netherlands, he explains:

    “Posing long-term issues provides a context for looking at the current conception of the future, which is largely defined by the issue of how best to respond to the rejection of the European constitutional treaty by the French and Dutch electorates. After an election, commentators rush to explain results, and generally over-simplify the situation, but there does seem to be a contrast between French criticism of the process of European change as threatening to dissolve social safety, and Dutch views about the overweening demands of the EU.

    If, however, hostility to the real, or apparent, pretensions and activities of the EU comes from different sources, and much was made by Euro-enthusiasts about contrasts between French and Dutch views, this does not imply that the EU is an appropriate via media or necessary compromise, both views voiced by supporters of Euro-convergence. Such an appoach accords with a tendency to see different views to those of Euro-convergence in terms of factious opposition that necessarily needs to be ignored or overridden, a view that is in accord with the ‘official mind’ of the EU and also with a centrist, or generally left-of-centre, political alignment. Politically, this attitude is at variance with the Anglo-American practice and precept of shifts in government control with the concomitant understanding not only that opposition is constitutionally valid, but also that its political place includes the role of gaining power.”

    While this summary of the difference between the whole idea of an integrated European state and a political system that is based on democratic accountability is entirely accurate, sadly one must relate that the rejection of the validity of political opposition is gaining ground within British politics, particularly at local but also at government level.

    Cross-posted from Albion’s Seedlings

    Posted in Europe | 2 Comments »

    Retro-Soviet Europe

    Posted by Shannon Love on 19th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Instapundit links to a Davids Medienkritik post about a study of anti-Americanism in European media. Ray observes:

    Note that, of those media analyzed, the most US critical media in all Europe were Germany’s two largest, state-sponsored television news broadcasts. Unfortunately, many Germans view these same state media as impartial and unbiased because they are (supposedly) independent of commercial interests.

    Is it just me or is Europe starting to give off that old Soviet Union vibe?
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

    Mexico’s dirty war

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 18th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Alvaro Vargas Llosa from the Independent Institute:

    A secret report commissioned by the Mexican government on Mexico’s “dirty war” under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the 1970s has caused a major scandal after being leaked to the press. It accuses the military of carrying out a genocidal policy against suspected subversives in the south between the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1980s.

    The exercise is not academic, of course: many killers remain at large, five hundred people are still missing, scores of families will probably never see justice done, and the PRI is still a major force in Mexican society. During my visit to Mexico last week, I had a chance to talk to some of the presidential candidates as well as a broad spectrum of intellectuals, business representatives, and journalists. The overall consensus is that the PRI will continue to wield colossal power through the state and local government structure as well as Congress, where it will command a solid bloc of votes. Even though Roberto Madrazo, the candidate of the party that ruled Mexico for most of the 20th century, is running third, he cannot be written off.

    …What we did not know until this report came out, was that the revolutionary fervor actually masked what—by the PRI’s own standards—can only be called a fascist or extreme right-wing policy of genocide, obliterating entire villages and killing scores of innocent victims.

    The PRI obviously understood the times. So long as it maintained a corrupt aid to revolutionaries inside and outside Mexico and an inflamed anti-imperialist rhetoric, it had carte blanche from all sorts of intellectuals, civil society movements and human-rights groups to practice a systematic negation of everything the PRI, a supposed progressive animal, stood for. …

    Mexicans would do well to remember this when they go to the polls in July and non-Mexicans should take notice of this new reminder that, even in the hands of governments we might feel inclined to support, the state can sometimes be, in Nietzsche’s words, the coldest of all cold monsters.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

    “I feel offended”

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on 18th March 2006 (All posts by )

    From Sign and Sight

    Sonia Mikich, host of the political program Monitor at the German public broadcaster WDR:

    I feel offended.

    Zealots are nailing veils onto the faces of my sisters in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are busy hanging women, homosexuals, adulterers and non-believers.

    I demand that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Indonesia and Egypt apologise to me. Otherwise I am unfortunately forced to threaten, beat up, kidnap or behead their citizens. Because I am somewhat sensitive about my cultural identity.

    I feel offended.

    Fanatics are blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan, marvellous cultural monuments.

    I demand that Hamas, the spokesman of the French Muslims and the Director of the Al-Azhar-University apologise to me. Otherwise I will never spend a holiday at the Taj Mahal, I will call for a boycott of Palestinian fruit and I will set the embassies of Tunisia, Qatar and Bangladesh on fire.

    I expect understanding for this at the very least – my feelings are absolute and must be expressed globally.

    I feel offended.

    Videos show journalists, truck drivers and NGO workers having their throats slit or their heads chopped off. Jews see themselves represented as cannibals and pigs, Western women as decadent sluts. Apolitical engineers have to fear for their lives.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

    The AoD Review

    Posted by Jay Manifold on 17th March 2006 (All posts by )

    All the cool kids are doing it, so I figure I’d better knock one of these out. Readers, if any remain, of my overwrought treatment of The Substance of Style (Part I; Part II; Part III) would understandably flee this blog right now, so I’ll try to be less, well, overwrought in my treatment of An Army of Davids
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Arts & Letters | 1 Comment »

    Hovering Parents in the Workplace

    Posted by David Foster on 17th March 2006 (All posts by )

    A couple of months ago, I wrote about kids whose self-esteem has been artificially raised to such extreme levels that they cannot stand criticism or disappointment…and who are now entering the workplace. In many cases, it seems that the parents of such kids are confronting the kids’ employers when their offspring get fail to get expected promotions, receive performance appraisals that aren’t all roses, etc.

    More on this theme in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

    A View From the Past

    Posted by Jonathan on 17th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Family Outing, Jerusalem, Late 1930s

    Posted in Photos | 2 Comments »

    Comments on “The Party for America Suckers”

    Posted by Jonathan on 17th March 2006 (All posts by )

    A couple of the reader comments on Shannon’s recent post are worthy of posts in their own right. In particular, check out this comment by VeryRetired and this comment by Helian.

    Or just read the whole thread.

    Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

    It is Better Than Working for a LIving

    Posted by James R. Rummel on 17th March 2006 (All posts by )

    The French government recently passed a law which allows employers to fire their employees if they choose to do so.

    Yes, I know. I, too, was shocked when I first heard about it. But then I discovered that the law only applied to workers who were 26 years old or younger, and only if they had been on the job for less than 2 years. Employers can give workers the boot without stating a reason as long as those conditions exist.

    Young people aren’t taking this lying down, though. Hundreds of thousands of them have taken to the streets in protest, causing major disruption and even some property damage. So far we haven’t seen as much arson like we did last year in French cities, but it’s possible that it could happen. That would be somewhat ironic since I figure that the favorite target of the protesters (cars) are owned by people who need them to get to work.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in France | 7 Comments »

    Blog Problems Fixed!

    Posted by Jonathan on 16th March 2006 (All posts by )

    The Chicagoboyz commenting system seems to be out of order, perhaps due to issues at the hosting company. I apologize for any inconvenience. Whatever the problem is, I suspect it will be fixed before very long.

    UPDATE: The hosting company renamed our comments script because it was causing “load issues” on their server. This seems odd, as we have a Turing system that prevents automated comment spam. Perhaps trackbacks are the real problem. Whatever it is I will try to get comments back up ASAP.

    UPDATE 2: Ah, turns out the Turing thing only blocks posting but does not prevent the running of CGI processes that clog up the server when a lot of spam comes through, as happened this afternoon. Comments are working again.

    Posted in Announcements | 3 Comments »

    Bioweapons, Unk-Unks, and Delayed Gratification

    Posted by Jay Manifold on 15th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Thanks, I suspect, to Glenn’s concern, Technorati shows 13 links to The Knowledge, Technology Review‘s article about the dangers of biological weapons — but only one to Assessing the Threat, the companion piece that casts doubts regarding the same subject. None of the links I found via Technorati lead to any lengthy commentary, and Glenn — whom I regard as a national treasure, so this is not meant to convey disrespect — doesn’t seem to get beyond saying “this is scary, and we ought to do something about it.” The blogosphere, it would seem, has its limitations, even in the face of mortal threats.
    By way of starting somewhere, then, I have a framework to offer that might at least help us determine how much trouble we’re in …
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Terrorism | 7 Comments »

    The Party for America Suckers

    Posted by Shannon Love on 15th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Man, am I ever going to catch hell for this post.

    Contemporary Democrats simply cannot understand why the electorate no longer trusts them to defend America. They have basically settled on blaming poor political marketing and/or Republican mind-control rays.

    I think there is a very simple explanation that just about everyone but diehard Democratic partisans can easily recognize. To whit:

    Voters who think that America sucks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Politics | 56 Comments »

    Middle East Economic Boom

    Posted by In-Cog-Nito on 15th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Here’s a very good Opinion Journal oped piece on the Mid East economic boom thanks to the high price of oil.

    The recent performance of Arab stock markets makes the Nasdaq of the late 1990s look like a slouch. Since January 2002, the Egyptian, Dubai and Saudi stock markets are up respectively by over 1,100%, 630% and 600%. Only four years ago, gulf companies were priced at around twice book value. Today they trade on an average of 44 times historic earnings and at over eight times book value. gulf banks are valued at over nine times book value, according to Credit Suisse.

    Here’s a website with pictures of Dubai. Very impressive.

    Photos from Visit Dubai at

    Posted in Markets and Trading | 6 Comments »

    Politics Before Science

    Posted by Shannon Love on 15th March 2006 (All posts by )

    This post by Dr. Helen about the American Psychological Association’s proposal to define any attempts to alter a person’s sexual orientation as unethical reminded me of an important episode in my intellectual life.

    In college during the mid-’80s I argued in my dorm-room bull sessions that discrimination against homosexuals was wrong or at least pointless because I thought considerable evidence existed that homosexuality, at least in males, had a physiological basis. I got the scoffing response from social conservatives that I expected but the response from leftist advocates of gay rights shocked me. They denounced me as a crypto-Nazi even though my ideas supported their agenda.
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Science | 7 Comments »

    Today – Chicago Rally for Denmark and Free Speech

    Posted by Jonathan on 14th March 2006 (All posts by )

    When: Tuesday, March 14 from noon to 1:00 PM.

    Where: Downtown Chicago, outside the Consulate of Denmark, 211 EAST ONTARIO ST. (by St. Clair St.).

    More information: Here

    UPDATE: Video of the rally (via Instapundit).

    Posted in Announcements | 3 Comments »

    The Failure of the ICC

    Posted by demimasque on 13th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Some friends and I were exchanging notes, and we discused the possibility that Slobodan Milosevic’s death was part of a conspiracy. I don’t usually spring for conspiracy theories, but we did discuss that the International Criminal Court having a motive: Milosevic’s defense had made a mockery of the proceedings. My friend outlined some of the problems with the ICC:

    1. Jurisdiction/sovereignty: This is basically a question of who has power over the defendant. The Serbs insist that Milosevic was theirs to try, and even his bitterest opponents in that country are angry that he was removed to the Hague. The essence of the jurisdictional issue is that Under Yugoslav Federal law and Serbian law, which govern the person of Slobodan Milosevic, the man and the Head of State, there is no call whatsoever for the ICC to try him because the legal institutions exist inside the country to judge the former President, if and when a case is made against him, which to date has not been the case. Further, Serbia, at the time of his alleged crimes, did not recognize the ICC.

    2. Serbian Law: The ICC considers itself to be in the right, but under Serbian law, the decision to take Milosevic to the Hague for trial constitutes kidnapping, since it was not agreed upon by a majority of the Serbian cabinet ministers. Thus, even if the ICC has jurisdiction by Milosevic’s presence, it is only because he was forcibly brought before the court.

    3. Evidence: Simply put, there isn’t any. Of the over 2000 people initally slated to testify against Milosevic, all but 5 have refused, partially over the sovereignity dispute, and the testimony of those 5 is both weak and unreliable. There is no paper trail or any sort of documentation that links Milosevic to any of the alleged crimes. It’s literally Milosevic’s word against the prosecutors.

    4. Lack of a Jury: This is one of the United State’s major complaints, and Milosevic has hammered it. The ICC doesn’t have juries…it uses a three judge panel to reach decisions. This is inherently fraught with conflict of interest, because if the ICC “loses” such a high profile case it will be the laughingstock of the world, and will never approach legitimacy. But inherent in that conflict, no fair trial was really possible for Milosevic.

    5. Legality of the Court: This is a finer point of law, but was Milosevic’s main argument, which the court had no answer for. Milosevic claimed that the ICC had no legal basis to hear his (or any) international case. The judge interpreted that as a question of jurisdiction, but they are not the same thing. Jurisdiction concerns the power of the court over the defendant. I could set up the court of “plezercruz” in my back yard with Jon holding a gun as my bailiff, and, if you stumbled into my back yard, I could declare jurisdiction over you because I CAN force you to comply. But it certainly wouldn’t be “legal.” Jurisdiction is about power, not right.

      Legality concerns whether the court actually is an agent of law in the first place. Milosevic’s argument was, basically, that since the UN Security Council itself had no right or ability in law to sanction him personally, it was impossible for that same council to create a court to do that for them. Courts are agents of the sovereign, and the UN has no sovereignity by defintion. By his argument, the ICC had no more right to try him than I have of trying you in my backyard. This argument crippled the ICC. It had no answer for it.

      Milosevic asked the ICC to seek a ruling from the International Court of Justice (a non-criminal UN court which settles inter-sovereign disputes and is nonbinding) as to it’s own legality, but the ICC basically ignored his request, despite amicus briefs from all over the world urging them to do so, probably because the ICC likely has no legitimacy in law.

    Overall, Slobodan Milosevich managed not only to derail his own prosecutors, but shook the basic foundation of the ICC itself. If not for Slobodan Milosevich’s glaring humiliation of the ICC, Saddam Hussein might have been sent to the ICC for judgment. Instead, the world has now seen that the ICC has deep internal legitimacy issues, and it is unlikely that any of Iraq’s ‘war criminals’ will be sent there.

    From that perspective, indeed, there seems to have been a motivation to hasten Milosevic’s departure from the mortal realm.

    (Hat-tip: plezercruz)

    [Cross-posted at Between Worlds]

    Posted in International Affairs | 6 Comments »

    Babies and market signals

    Posted by ken on 13th March 2006 (All posts by )

    Why do human beings respond to market signals and have a profit motive?

    Because, for many generations, people who did were able to feed more babies with less effort than people who didn’t, and thus left behind more people who behaved as they did.

    Now I’m not asserting that there’s a gene for profit motive. There are genes that influence problem solving ability, genes that influence drive and ambition, genes that influence the criteria by which women evaluate potential mates, and so on. All those genes lead to a creature capable of interpreting market signals and posessing some inclination and ability to respond to them when they present themselves.

    But a changing environment leads to a change in the characteristics that lead to more surviving descendants. There have long been market signals that tell us we can profit by dividing our resources with fewer (or no) children; however, until recently, collecting that profit has been exceedingly difficult for most people. Today, of course, that is not so; keeping all of our resources for our own enjoyment by preventing childbirth is fairly easy for those that posess the same problem solving abilities and the profit motive that enabled our ancestors to earn more resources for the children they couldn’t easily avoid having.

    Add to that the fact that death during childhood is now almost unheard of, and the formula for leaving behind lots of surviving kids and grandkids in our society is drastically different. The strategies might include:
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »