Don’t talk about daycare “because parents suffer enough guilt already.”

An article from the summer 2012 Salvo.

Daycare Denial
Inconvenient Truths About Childcare Subvert the Very Best Intentions
by Marcia Segelstein

It wasn’t that long ago that there were frequent (and frequently annoying) discussions about the “mommy wars” in mainstream media outlets. It made for good copy, but even the phrase diminished the real issue to a kind of cartoon, a metaphorical mud-wrestling match between briefcase-toting, business-suited career women and apron-clad, breastfeeding, stay-at-home moms. The real question, which for a variety of reasons wasn’t seriously addressed, was whether it is better for mothers to stay home and raise their own children or put them in the care of hired help. And for most women, hired help meant daycare.

There isn’t much talk about the “mommy wars” any more, or whether daycare is good or bad for children. That’s because, despite study after study to the contrary, daycare has simply been accepted as acceptable. Which takes us back to why daycare wasn’t reported on deliberately and fairly in the first place.

Off-Limits Topic

When I was a producer for CBS This Morning, covering family issues, we sometimes partnered with Parents magazine. So one day I had lunch with the then-editor to talk about possible future projects. I suggested working together on a series about daycare. Before the word was barely out of my mouth, she stopped me by saying that Parents magazine chose not to cover daycare “because parents suffer enough guilt already.”

It took a while for the full implications of that statement to sink in. Parents magazine put parents’ potential guilt above children’s potential welfare. And of course there was the not small matter of selling magazines.

continue reading . . .

Diversity Chief has a Diverse Opinion. Fired.

Well not quite. Hunter Baker posted a link to this story on Facebook, and I think he’s correct in calling this situation a new kind of McCarthyism.

University’s diversity chief put on leave after signing anti-gay marriage petition

However, the details of this story seem to point to cooler heads prevailing as most people involved are trying to be fair about this. But it also goes to show, if you’re going to have the most liberal/PC sounding job title on the planet (University Diversity Chief [!]), you better live up to the expectations of those who hired you.

Dr. Baker has written for Salvo. See below:

A Grave New World: When science trumps religion, our personhood is the casualty

Separation Anxiety: It’s a National Epidemic, So Why Do Couples Continue to Divorce?

Facts Evasion: When It Comes to Sex, the Left Hates Science

Misguided Compassion

From the article Wrong About Rights by Terrell Clemmons from Salvo issue 18. You should read the whole thing, but see this excerpt below and you’ll get the idea.

. . .

The kicker about redistributive programs is that they operate by inherent injustice. Economist Ben O’Neill of the University of New South Wales elucidates:

Since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use force to acquire one’s desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them! (“The Injustice of Social Justice,” posted on, March 16, 2011)

In most settings, forcible taking is called “theft,” yet much of what flies under the banner of social justice does exactly this.

State Programs Fail

But, well-meaning people will ask, shouldn’t we help the poor among us? Indeed we should, but the question to consider is whether doing so primarily through the government is effective.

Social entitlement programs are championed on the premise that government, being bigger and having access to greater resources than individuals and private groups, is in a better position to help the poor. But is that premise borne out in reality? To find out, the World Bank commissioned a study of more than one hundred countries over a thirty-year period. In the final report, On the Relevance of Freedom and Entitlement in Development, published in May 2011, the researchers concluded unequivocally that entitlement-oriented paradigms do not generate prosperity:

These results tend to support earlier findings that . . . the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.

Thus, while it may seem expedient for a society to collectively work to alleviate poverty through government agency, in reality this approach does not work.

GK Quote of the Day

G. K. Chesterton quote of the day:

The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.

And who doesn’t like to follow a smart-sounding quote with an anecdote?

Calculus professor strips naked in classroom, shouts “There Is No F–king God”

And for the record, stories like this are precisely why Salvo is anti-science. . . . and now also anti-math.

Just kidding.

We hope the professor is ok and that in the future he is able to just teach the science.

HT: Wintery Knight

Technology Getting Under My Skin

Here is a video interview of a man discussing the Dangerous Idea* that humanity is waking up from natural selection and, thanks to technological implants, we can transcend human nature and become god-like beings. He quotes E. O. Wilson: Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us…. Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.”

Anybody ever see The Lawnmower Man?

*They use the word dangerous ironically. They really mean it’s a good idea that only backwards, lesser-evolved people would be skeptical of.