<< Split of Authority on NSA Phone Program | Main | News Scan >>


Root Causes

| 2 Comments
I apologize in advance for the woefully tiresome eight zillionth post on root causes, but I thought I'd try my hand at designating the actual root causes, as opposed to the usual menu served up by academia and the defense bar, to wit:  America's capitalist inequities, Klan-driven attitudes, male dominance, militarism, wahooism, frontier brutality, know-nothingism, and Disrespect for Our Betters in Europe, that being all of them.

I was in the prosecution business for a long time, and I can tell you without having taken a single sociology course what the root causes are:  Greed, lack of empathy for the feelings and rights of others, extremely bad impulse control, and the view that rules are for suckers.

I will swear to all of that in court.

For those seeking a somewhat more in-depth discussion of the matter, however, let me recommend today's Powerline entry, in which the brilliant Paul Mirengoff discusses the outlook of the equally brilliant Michael Barone.

2 Comments

This is a very important story, which has obvious crime and punishment dimensions. On the sentencing side, there is considerable evidence that incarceration has a profoundly negative impact on family structures, suggesting that true pro-family CJ policies would be very interested in alternatives to incarceration, especially for first offenders who are parents. Of course, the federal sentencing guidelines have unwisely provided from the outset that such consideration cannot generally justify a below guideline sentence.

More broadly, a number of more modern liberal social policies -- from gay marriage to abortion rights to forced contraception care as parts or health plans to universal day care -- seem far more likely to reduce the number of kids from broken homes than alternative policies from folks on the right.

Let's see if we can re-cast this to make it more realistic:

"On the sentencing side, there is considerable evidence that incarceration has a profoundly negative impact on family structures, suggesting that men who actually care about their families would not risk jail and instead would live normal, productive lives rather than trying to make a fast buck doing something they full well know is wrong, especially if they are parents."

Do you disagree with that sentence?

"Of course, the federal sentencing guidelines have wisely provided from the outset that family considerations cannot generally justify a below guideline sentence, because to do otherwise would be to discriminate against unmarried people."

Or do you favor such discrimination?

I will leave one sentence of yours untouched, and will repeat it verbatim: "More broadly, a number of more modern liberal social policies -- from gay marriage to abortion rights to forced contraception care as parts or health plans to universal day care -- seem far more likely to reduce the number of kids from broken homes than alternative policies from folks on the right."

Gay marriage has zip to do with it, and the idea of government-forced contraception is unbelievably repugnant. It is an amazing, and very revealing, statement of "modern LIBERAL social policies" to include forced contraception.

"Liberal" social policies indeed.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives