Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Administrative and other matters
First of all, I will certainly be getting to the aforementioned post on Burke and stare decisis. So far, a little thing called work has interfered with me wrting substantively on the matter. (Speaking of work, I received my first Maryland-taxed paycheck, and I am one of those rare birds who has moved to Maryland and seen his tax burden substantially reduced. Hooray to no more DC taxes!)
I also wanted to alert you all to a slight change in our design. You may have all noticed that a litte Read more tag appears at the bottom of each post. We're trying something new to save page space, and that is using a design to hide some of the post text on our longer posts. Unfortunately, because we use blogger, that tag appears even on posts that do not utilize the hide function. Well, as they say, you get what you pay for. If a post runs long enough to require using the hide more button, we'll alert you.
Speaking of which, I want to thank blogger and sometime commenter Pervious for showing me how to add that feature.
And speaking of Pervious, I would like to comment on one of Pervious' recent blog entries, and as such I will now utilize that Read More button. Click on it to read the rest of the entry.Okay, now then. Pervious recently wrote of the strange connection between childless people and those with out-of-control children. Pervious writes:
It strikes me that often we get sidetracked on our discussion of issues by people who challenge the idea that their rights are being interfered with. The recourse to "rights" talk is often a red herring. I particularly have in mind when people brandish the "First Amendment" sword whenever their views are challenged. For example, when the Dixie Chicks made what some perceived as unfairly harsh criticisms of President Bush overseas during a concert, they received a lot of flak. Their defenders made much of their First Amendment rights to talk this way, and some even hinted that their rights were being violated. But such a defense misses the mark. First of all, the first amendment relates only to governmental interference with speech. Thus a company that fires a sponsored celebrity does not infringe upon the first amendment, because the first amendment does not apply to private actions. Furthermore, the first amendment does not guarantee a platform, nor does it protect against criticism. After all, the critics are merely employing their right to free speech.
Long story short, I resent it when people fall back on "rights" arguments when no fundamental right is being impinged. Criticism of action does not imply that one wants to take away the other's right to engage in such action. Often times such a line of argument is nothing more than a red herring.
I also wanted to alert you all to a slight change in our design. You may have all noticed that a litte Read more tag appears at the bottom of each post. We're trying something new to save page space, and that is using a design to hide some of the post text on our longer posts. Unfortunately, because we use blogger, that tag appears even on posts that do not utilize the hide function. Well, as they say, you get what you pay for. If a post runs long enough to require using the hide more button, we'll alert you.
Speaking of which, I want to thank blogger and sometime commenter Pervious for showing me how to add that feature.
And speaking of Pervious, I would like to comment on one of Pervious' recent blog entries, and as such I will now utilize that Read More button. Click on it to read the rest of the entry.Okay, now then. Pervious recently wrote of the strange connection between childless people and those with out-of-control children. Pervious writes:
gross self-indulgence is at the root of both the radical child-free mindset and the middle-class under-parenting tradition that helps fan the anti-child flames. Both groups put their lifestyle preferences ahead of the well-being of the culture and its future, and both opt not to parent, and to avoid the company of children, because it and they are too much trouble. Maybe that's why it's no debate: both sides agree on the core issue.Agree or disagree with this contention, I believe it is an interesting one. But the comments section turned a bit nasty, and one anonymous commenter ripped into Pervious and turned it into a choice issue:
The choice to have kids is nobody's decision but your own. YOU have the choice to have kids. And I have made a choice not to (and even if I could have kids, I'd adopt. They need a home more than the world needs more gross overpopulation).Fair enough, but it did not seem Pervious was making any comment about the choice to have kids or not. It seemed the commenter was conflating criticism of the behavior or attitude with a comment about the right to make the decision in the first place. Pervious was not disputing the right to make these decisions, but the attitude that was behind them.
It strikes me that often we get sidetracked on our discussion of issues by people who challenge the idea that their rights are being interfered with. The recourse to "rights" talk is often a red herring. I particularly have in mind when people brandish the "First Amendment" sword whenever their views are challenged. For example, when the Dixie Chicks made what some perceived as unfairly harsh criticisms of President Bush overseas during a concert, they received a lot of flak. Their defenders made much of their First Amendment rights to talk this way, and some even hinted that their rights were being violated. But such a defense misses the mark. First of all, the first amendment relates only to governmental interference with speech. Thus a company that fires a sponsored celebrity does not infringe upon the first amendment, because the first amendment does not apply to private actions. Furthermore, the first amendment does not guarantee a platform, nor does it protect against criticism. After all, the critics are merely employing their right to free speech.
Long story short, I resent it when people fall back on "rights" arguments when no fundamental right is being impinged. Criticism of action does not imply that one wants to take away the other's right to engage in such action. Often times such a line of argument is nothing more than a red herring.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 11:27 AM
