April 3, 2004
WHY SPIRITS WERE BETTER IN '76:
Britain Cracks Down on Nasties Like the 'Neighbor From Hell' (SARAH LYALL, 4/02/04, NY Times)
The first hint that all was not well with the new neighbor came the day he moved in, when he seemed strangely proud of his prison-issue electronic ankle bracelet. Things went downhill from there.First came demands to "borrow" items like light bulbs, food, money for the bus. Then, when nearby families objected to his late-night fights and banging on the walls, the neighbor, Ian Dickens, embarked on a one-man terror campaign, blasting his music at night, shouting abuse from his windows and threatening to kill the local children.
In November, a Birmingham court decreed that enough was enough and served Mr. Dickens with an "antisocial behavior order" made possible by one of an array of measures enacted by Prime Minister Tony Blair's government since 1999 to confront what is widely seen as an erosion of civilized norms in this once polite country.
In the past four years, about 1,600 Britons have been served such orders as part of an aggressive effort by the state to police behavior that would once have been the purview of families or neighborhoods — everything from truancy and vandalism to drunken brawling on the street. [...]
[I]n a country where gun crimes and murders are still relatively rare, conduct loosely defined as antisocial has proliferated in recent years, proponents of the measures say. In a 24-hour experiment meant to provide a snapshot of a typical day last fall, the Home Office recorded 60,000 instances of such behavior — from abusive words to urinating in public — more than one every two seconds.
"It's the single most important issue raised by voters, and it denotes how politics has changed," Frank Field, a Labor member of Parliament and the author of "The Politics of Behavior," said in an interview. "When I started, it was the politics of class, and now it's the politics of behavior."
The reasons for the rise in antisocial behavior are complex, but include the breakdown of traditional families, a decline in old habits of deference and respect and, in the view of many in government, the emergence of a social security-dependent culture that promotes a feeling of entitlement but not a feeling of responsibility.
Complex? They replaced the society with the state. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 3, 2004 6:59 AM
You might want to study the history of mob violence in Britain. It's way, way down since the triumph of secularism.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 3, 2004 1:39 PMAnother, or perhaps derivative, explanation is the much higher cultural importance and respect given to children and families in North America compared to (Northern) Europe. The European diplomats we know through my wife's school are all struck by and much impressed with this. In Europe, children aren't even really welcome in restaurants and few are brave or foolish enough to take their kids to sporting events. Children simply aren't as present in public life and their welfare is just not the priority it is here.
This translates into a much lower tolerance for yobbism, more friendliness and better general social etiquette. The most dramatic example I know of was the 1994 World Cup. Sold out matches in about a dozen North American cities and not one incident. The Europeans can't have a third division game without a drunken riot.
This is one reason why it is so worrisome that current debates over marriage and other moral issues betray a growing rejection of the connection to the health of the family and the care and protection of children. Liberals and libertarians just trot out their J.S. Mill, apply their rote rationalism and assume the kids will be all right whatever happens. Or maybe they really don't care if they aren't.
Posted by: Peter B at April 3, 2004 3:04 PMEasy test:
# of deaths from Christian mob violence in all of human history
vs.
# of aborrtions in secularized West in last fifty years
Posted by: oj at April 3, 2004 10:30 PMIt's the same policy as the US' "broken window" theory of policing, which has worked pretty well in places like NYC and LA.
Hopefully, it'll have positive effects in the UK, as well.
Peter B:
Or maybe it's simply that the status quo side can't point to any way in which children are/have been harmed, that hasn't been caused by status quo families, i.e.: Hetero-, two person marriages or couplings.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 4, 2004 3:46 AMProblem with the easy test.
Where does one put all the exposed-to-death infants in the pre-secular West?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 4, 2004 4:04 AMMichael:
Oh, please. The staus quo side never ceases to point out connections, present evidence and warn of threats. The problem is the refusal of modernists to accept any arguments based upon experience and the reality of human nature and their insistence that the issues be debated as if man were a perfectly rational animal with total self-knowledge and no propensity to be influenced by others.
Jeff:
We put those deaths in your column too because religion condemned and fought them.
Posted by: Peter B at April 4, 2004 6:35 AMPeter B:
Indeed ?
In the past, you have been unable to point out any way in which children might be harmed by gay marriage, except that divorcing gays might clog family court.
Have you come up with something better ?
I certainly agree that humans are, in the main, irrational and self-deluded, and if they cannot be influenced, then there's not much point to participating here.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 4, 2004 9:42 AMChildren are harmed any time the institutions of their society are attacked, but espoecially those governing morality and the family. It's hard enough to figure out how to be a decent human being without being told that buggery is love.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2004 9:51 AMMichael:
I couldn't care less about clogged family courts, but:
A) The only coherent justification for the neighbourhood, community or state to have any say in the legal nature of intimate relationships is the encouragement, care and protection of children and those who care for them. To look to the state to sanctify sex and love is crazy and hardly consistent with any notions of freedom;
B) Children may be a blessing but they also rob us of our freedom, money, health and time. There is a great deal of self-denial involved in raising tham and committing to them for life (and in committing to a spouse, the necessary incident). If society wants lots of healthy, happy, disciplined and purposeful children, it must support the family materially but also psychologically by honouring the uniqueness of the institution and by sanctifying it and its purpose. In other words, society should be giving thanks and honour in very real and concrete ways, but also in symbolic ways. That means discriminating. To blind one's eyes and pretend everybody is completely different, all relationships are equal by definition and that we have no interest in whether relationships survive or not (but hope they will with Dr. Phil's wise advice) is madness. You don't give the Congressional Medal of Honor to skilled and popular platoon cooks in the name of equal treatment and you don't accord the honour of marriage to people just because they know how to give sexual pleasure and feel strongly about one another.
C) It is destructive, selfish and cruel to teach children that intimate relations are all a matter of personal taste and choice and that there is no connection between them and happiness and fulfillment. It is a hypocritical lie to tell them five thousand years of civilization has left us with no guidance in this area about do's and don't's (mainly don't's). It is a manifest absurdity to say there is no connection between healthy families and the overall strength and resiliance of society. But if we do continue to tell children all this, more and more of them will believe and act on it, because it will look easier and like a lot more fun. So, sadly, will far too many of their parents.
Now, I doubt I have persuaded you of anything, but will you at least allow that the argument has been made?
Posted by: Peter B at April 4, 2004 12:24 PMKeep adding, Harry. You'll get to .01% eventually.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2004 4:43 PMPeter:
Now I'm getting blamed for what happened before secularization?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 4, 2004 6:44 PMJeff:
That is because you suffer from the modern conceit that religion was all-powerful and controlling before the philosophy you like came along. Didn't happen that way.
Posted by: Peter B at April 4, 2004 6:54 PMPeter:
Way up at the top, OJ blamed secularization for all those abortions.
Fair enough.
But what do you blame the exact analog on before secularization?
The "Easy Test" was, at least, ahistorical.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 4, 2004 8:47 PMI generally agree with what Peter has said. The gay marriage issue has gained momentum largely because traditional marriage has become so degraded in practice. Once it became the norm for heterosexuals to treat marriage as a self-fulfillment vehicle, which can be entered into and exited at will, it was inevitable that homosexuals would demand to partake in it. When children are abundant, society enforces a taboo against vulgar and obscene behavior for the benefit of the children. This benefits all of society by making it more civil and polite. When adults no longer feel any duty to have children, or to look after and promote the welfare of the children in their midst, then it is all just a free-for-all. I think we all underestimate the extent to which children in a society civilize the behavior of the adults.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 4, 2004 10:15 PMRobert --
I think that is exactly right. The argument that we have cheapened marriage with easy divorce, instant weddings, flavor of the day marriages, abortion, bastardy, two career families, day care, cohabitation, etc., etc., on ad infinitum and thus it is hypocritical to draw the line at gay marriage -- an attempt by outsiders to emulate what we say we want to preserve -- is unanswerable. There are only two choices: either we show that we are serious about marriage, or we allow gay marriage, and then contract marriages, and then multiple partner marriages, etc.
Frankly, put like that, I think gay marriage would win in a landslide.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 4, 2004 11:07 PMWhat cheapened the sanctity of marriage was the growth of the city. In a village, you couldn't very well change partners.
Which is not to say that village life was so pristine as you guys think it was.
But it was the anonymity of the city that changed things.
Orrin, you can only kill 100% of the bodies available. You should look up Siege of Alhama (there's a version in Book 1 of Prescott's history of Ferdinand and Isabella).
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 5, 2004 1:17 AMBig deal--it was a war.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2004 1:22 AMJeff:
The exact analog? Have you convinced yourself that if abortion is restricted we will see a corresponding rise in infanticide and so it is all a wash in the end.
This is what your fundamentalist belief in naturalism has done to you. Does the word "civilization" mean anything?
David, I agree. Gay rights advocates owe a lot to Hugh Hefner, which is why gay marriage is probably a done deal. Sexual freedom was guaranteed by the Founders, wasn't it?
Posted by: Peter B at April 5, 2004 5:44 AMSexual license and moral relativism was explicitly guaranteed by the framers and the ratifying states.Of course, the states and localities were to have no say since it was originally intended that a panel of life-tenured, unelected judges would determine social norms according to their personal tastes regardless of pior law and custom. The influence on said judges was to be limited to prestigous law school faculties, commentators from NPR, the editorial board of the NYT, as well as Linda Greenhouse, laurence Tribe and Joe Biden as well as those who advocate the most current theory regarding constitutional law.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 5, 2004 12:42 PMIn most villages and towns, guys like this Ian whatever (the obnoxious one) would be kept on a short leash, especially regarding the threats. In some cases, he would cow everyone and be almost an urban legend (until someone brave came along and beat him senseless).
In a Missouri town about 25 years ago (as I remember), the people more or less banded together and killed the local bully in the street. No one was prosecuted (the police were among those he bullied).
In this case, the conclusion does not really fit the story. Had one of Ian's neighbor's been arrested for being 'neighbourly' towards him, then it would.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 5, 2004 10:51 PMIn the Missouri case, it was one man -- the local barkeep -- who did the deed. Like Alexander Bell-the-Cat. The citizens closed ranks, but he had to act on his own and hope they would.
Orrin, you want to look up the massacre at Alhama. It didn't happen as part of a war.
It did start one, though.
A VERY MOURNFUL BALLAD
ON THE SIEGE AND CONQUEST OF ALHAMA (Lord Byron, 1817)
The Moorish King rides up and down
Through Granada's royal town;
From Elvira's gates to those
Of Bivarambla on he goes.
Woe is me, Alhama!
Letters to the monarch tell
How Alhama's city fell;
In the fire the scroll he threw,
And the messenger he slew.
Woe is me, Alhama!
He quits his mule, and mounts his horse,
And through the street directs his course;
Through the street of Zacatin
To the Alhambra spurring in.
Woe is me, Alhama!
When the Alhambra walls he gain'd,
On the moment he ordain'd
That the trumpet straight should sound
With the silver clarion round.
Woe is me, Alhama!
And when the hollow drums of war
Beat the loud alarm afar,
That the Moors of town and plain
Might answer to the martial strain,
Woe is me, Alhama!
Then the Moors, by this aware
That bloody Mars recall'd them there,
One by one, and two by two,
To a mighty squadron grew.
Woe is me, Alhama!
Out then spake an aged Moor
In these words the king before:
"Wherefore call on us, oh King?
What may mean this gathering?"
Woe is me, Alhama!
"Friends! Ye have, alas! To know
Of a most disastrous blow,
That the Christians, stern and bold,
Have obtain'd Alhama's hold."
Woe is me, Alhama!
Out then spake old Alfaqui,
With his beard so white to see,
"Good King, thou are justly served,
Good King, this thou hast deserved.
Woe is me Alhama!
"By thee were slain, in evil hour,
The Abecerrage, Granada's flower;
And strangers were received by thee
Of Cordova the chivalry.
Woe is me, Alhama!
"And for this, oh King! Is sent
On thee a double chastisement,
Thee and thine, thy crown and realm,
One last wreck shall overwhelm,
Woe is me, Alhama!
"He who holds no laws in awe,
He must perish by the law;
And Granada must be won,
And thyself with her undone."
Woe is me, Alhama!
Fire flash'd from out the old Moor's eyes,
The Monarch's wrath began to rise,
Because he answer'd, and because
He spake exceeding well of laws.
Woe is me, Alhama!
"There is no law to say such things
As may disgust the ear of kings:" --
Thus, snorting with his choler, said
The Moorish King, and doom'd him dead.
Woe is me, Alhama!
Moor Alfaqui! Moor Alfaqui!
Though thy beard so hoary be,
The King hath sent to have thee seized,
For Alhama's loss displeased.
Woe is me, Alhama!
And to fix thy head upon
High Alhambra's loftiest stone;
That this for thee should be the law,
And others tremble when they saw.
Woe is me, Alhama!
"Cavalier! And man of worth!
Let these words of mine go forth;
Let the Moorish monarch know,
That to him I nothing owe:
Woe is me, Alhama!
"But on my soul Alhama weighs,
And on my inmost spirit preys;
And if the King his land hath lost,
Yet others may have lost the most.
Woe is me, Alhama!
"Sires have lost their children, wives
Their lords, and valiant men their lives;
One what best his love might claim
Hath lost, another wealth or fame.
Woe is me, Alhama!
"I lost a damsel in that hour,
Of all the land the lovliest flower;
Doubloons a hundred I would pay,
And think her ransom cheap that day."
Woe is me, Alhama!
And as these things the old Moor said,
They sever'd from the trunk his head;
And to the Alhambra's wall with speed
"Twas carried, as the King decreed..
Woe is me, Alhama!
And men and infants therein weep
Their loss, so heavy and so deep;
Granada's ladies, all she rears
Within her walls, burst into tears.
Woe is me, Alhama!
And from the windows o'er the walls
The sable web of mourning falls;
The King weeps as a woman o'er
His loss, for it is much and sore.
Woe is me, Alhama!
Posted by: oj at April 7, 2004 12:14 AM