This Fox News report suggests that Copenhagen, the site of Obama’s Olympic-size humiliation, may be (to borrow a phrase from Yogi Berra) déjà vu all over again for the president:
At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark. … Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and environmental fellow at the Cato Institute, said he has his doubts. ”The president is carrying nothing credible in his pocket, so how can he compel people to do something credible?” he said, referring to the fact that Congress has not passed its cap-and-trade bill.
Even fellow Democrat Sen. Jim Webb is reminding Obama that he doesn’t have “the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon” in Copenhagen. And then there is the peculiar challenge of an international confab to decide how to micromanage national economies based on science that is now the subject of comedy routines. It doesn’t seem quite, well, credible.
To avoid another major embarrassment, it’s possible that, as the Obami have been forced to do many times already, they will come up with a photo-op, or a meaningless working agreement to get to work on an agreement. Still, one wonders why the president is once again putting his prestige on the line when the chances of a payoff are slim. Well, I suppose it beats answering media questions at home about the looming Iranian threat and our domestic economic woes (and yes, another national unemployment figure due out Friday).
These are horrifying stories.
Isn’t the practice (requirement?) of having as many children as possible (8, 10, 12 children) per family, child abuse per se? This practice is uncommon in the United States, even among those groups that ban birth control, except among the Hassidim.
I know that Arabs in the Midlle East have many children, but then they blow them up as Matyrs so the remaining family members can get better apartments and cash incentives from Arab countries
now, where have we seen this type of behavior before? hhhmmm, so the great religions have more in common than they care to admit, and it’s not morality, but its opposite.
oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/
Everything evolves, including doctrines that are committed to retaining age-old practices and beliefs. Creationism was no longer an issue after the Scopes trial, but then the attack on reason brought about by the counter-culture reached traditional Christianity and revived this belief. Martyrdom was not a big problem among Muslims, but now it is glorified by jihadists and aimed at us—the rest of the world. Orthodox Judaism has always existed, but now there are the ultra-Orthodox, a minority of whom are becoming ever more ultra. Ionesco, in his play RHINOCEROS, described a situation where everyone turned into rhinoceroses because it was the thing to do.
My maternal grandparents were Hasidim, had nine children, and scrupulously observed all the commandments. I cannot imagine them doing things like abusing their children or wearing veils covering their faces. The people we are reading about may think of themselves as traditional, but they are the cutting edge of the 21st century, alas.
“Isn’t the practice (requirement?) of having as many children as possible (8, 10, 12 children) per family, child abuse per se? ”
The _practice_ isn’t. It has been common practice for most of mankind’s history in most cultures, including the West. Benjamin Franklin was the fifteenth of his father’s twenty children. (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/colonialamerica/p/bio_franklin.htm)
If his father had stopped at 14, there would have been no Ben Franklin.
Charles Darwin had ten children, and was a very good father.
Many large families are happy families. And many single children are abused or neglected.
Every case is different.
The _requirement_ to have more children than one can handle can obviously create problems – whether “more” be 20 or 1.
But even so, it is no excuse for the crime of child abuse: unwanted children
have rights, too, and unwilling parents must find the will to respect those rights.
I read the articles cited by Mr. Hazony and was unable to find any facts indicating the abuse in these cases was “covered up” by members of the communities in which the abusers lived. Mr. Hazony seems to be suggesting by his cover-up theory that when orthodox communities become aware of child abuse, their practice is to allow the practice to continue to avoid public embarrassment. This is a serious charge and, before making it, Mr. Hazony should have substantial evidence to back it up. That evidence is certainly not apparent from Mr. Hazony’s post or from the articles to which he cites.
Sweeping a community’s problems under the rug rather than working to solve them is to be abhorred.
But let’s at least understand this defensive reaction. When faced with the dripping sarcasm of individuals such as LewH above, whose hatred blinds him to all that could be beautiful in raising a large family, one tends to circle the wagons.
A genuine dialogue between the Ultra Orthodox and those who wish to help them deal with abuse in their community is possible and actually ongoing. But it only works if we can agree that whether a “practice is uncommon in the United States” should not be determinative of appropriate behaviour.