Single Parenthood is Dangerous for Children

We educated Americans can afford to screw up. We have skills and we have backup. But there is a class of Americans that don’t. They are the children of single-parent families. In fact, as Kay S. Hymowitz tells us in Marriage and Caste in America, it’s gone beyond a question of class. The single-parent “lifetyle” choice is more of a caste, a separate world from the middle-class mainstream of American life.

As the Wall Street Journal folks put it:

experts who have looked closely at the phenomenon have hardly anything positive to say. Past research indicates that the bulk of unwed births are to young women, typically in their 20s, who are not college-educated and are not prospering. There's also a mountain of evidence to suggest that children raised by such single mothers are at an increased risk for virtually every social problem you can think of--poverty, crime, drug use, etc.--including single parenthood.

It’s curious really. Children who live with mother and boy-friend are something like 10 to 20 times more likely to suffer violence than the child of biological married parents. Imagine if fast food were 20 times more likely to result in negative outcomes for children! Why, the activists would be appearing twice daily to testify to Congress and twice nightly on the network news.

Why then is there silence on the danger, the physical danger to children of single parenthood?

The world wants to know.

Education Choice is Working

It’s a neverending task. To demonstrate again and again that choice works in education.

Because the entrenched interests don’t want you to know. Because the entrenched interests want to continue to enjoy their sinecures and their privileges without accountability.

It’s a dog-in-the-manger attitude that we all are capable of. The desire to sit like a bump on a log, getting that check every month, but not actually being responsible for outcomes. Not being responsible to taxpayers, not being responsible to parents, not being responsible to students.

So here is David Green reporting on school choice achievements in the US and Sweden.

Yes. Imagine that! School choice is alive and well in Sweden! According to Green (emphasis added):

Since 1992, parents in Sweden who are dissatisfied with the local state school have had a right to send their child to an independent school and to receive state funding, now equivalent to the average cost of a place in the state system.

...

Controversial at first in Sweden, vouchers now enjoy cross-party support. They are even supported by the unions. The president of the Swedish Teachers Union has said that its members were "a little suspicious at first" but were now satisfied.

In the US school choice is also proceeding, on a very limited scale. Harvard researcher Caroline Hoxby has analyzed the results. She (emphasis added):

studied attainment by Milwaukee's pupils before and after the introduction of vouchers. She compared three types of school: those most subject to competition (with two-thirds or more of pupils eligible for vouchers); those subject to some competition (with less than two-thirds of their pupils eligible); and a group of other Wisconsin schools not subject to additional competition. Compared with the monopoly era before 1998, competition raised standards for everyone, and the bigger the risk of losing pupils to rival schools, the greater the improvement.

Of course, this is like comfirming that gravity works. We know that people work better when they are challenged by competition, whether it is boys competing in school, businesses competing against businesses in the global marketplace, or schools competing against other schools about town.

And anyone that doesn’t get it “just doesn’t care about kids.”

Giza Pyramids Made of Concrete?

I know, it sounds so low rent. Surely the pharaohs that built the pyramids at Giza in Egypt couldn’t have descended to something as rude and crude as concrete when they built their mausoleums?

But that is what John Noble Wilford reports in The New York Times. A team of researchers has taken samples of the interior of the pyramids and believe that some of the blocks of stone are in fact lime-based concrete. If true, it means that concrete was invented 2,500 years earlier than was thought.

Dr. Barsoum and his co-workers, Adrish Ganguly of Drexel and Gilles Hug of the National Center for Scientific Research in France, analyzed the mineralogy of samples from several parts of the Khufu pyramid, and said they found mineral ratios that did not exist in any known limestone sources. From the geochemical mix of lime, sand and clay, they concluded, “the simplest explanation” is that it was cast concrete.

But some people are not so happy about all this.

Zahi Hawass, secretary general of antiquities in Egypt and director of the Giza pyramids excavations, said in an e-mail message, “The idea that concrete was used is unlikely and completely unproven.”

Apparently the pyramid has been “restored and reinforced many times with the extensive use of concrete” so it’s possible that Barsoum and his collaborators were merely sampling more recent additions to the tombs.

Of course, it was only the outer casing that was built of pure white limestone. The inner casings were made of much rougher stuff. But concrete? Dahling, it’s so K-Mart!

Steven Pinker is Half-Right on Education

Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker is a standout contributor to our national dialogue. When Pinker talks, people listen. What he says about Harvard’s once-in-a-generation review of its course structure is important.

And what he says tells us a lot about our intellectual elite and the way they experience the world—and more crucially how they impress their opinions on the rest of us.

Pinker looks at the university’s “Report of the Committee on General Education” and finds a couple of problems. First of all he doesn’t like the tone of the committee’s approach to Science and Technology, and secondly he doesn’t like the approach to Reason and Faith.

On Science and Technology he worries about the introduction:

“Science and technology directly affect our students in many ways, both positive and negative.”

Well yes, life-saving medicines and nuclear weapons, “and I suppose one could say that architecture has produced both museums and gas chambers.”

To Pinker, the committee is missing the point.

Missing from the report is a sensitivity to the ennobling nature of knowledge: to the inherent value, with consequences too far-reaching to enumerate, of understanding how the world works. For one thing, it is a remarkable fact that we have come to understand as much as we do about the natural world: the history of the universe and our planet, the forces that make it tick, the stuff we’re made of, the origin of living things, and the machinery of life, including our own mental life.

Exactly, Dr. Pinker. The knowledge we have gathered in the last couple of centuries about the natural world is nothing short of miraculous. And the more we know, the more mysterious the universe appears.

But Pinker is also worried about the juxtaposition of Reason and Faith.

[T]he juxtaposition of the two words makes it sound like “faith” and “reason” are parallel and equivalent ways of knowing, and we have to help students navigate between them. But universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith — believing something without good reasons to do so — has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these.

...

Religion is an important force, to be sure, but so are nationalism, ethnicity, socialism, markets, nepotism, class, and globalization.

Oh dear, Dr. Pinker. The reason that reason and faith are juxtaposed is because they are a Yin and Yang: the “Is” and the “Ought,” the facts and the meaning of the facts.

It’s all very well to amass a pile of facts about the world, but what do they mean? And what do we do about it? Faith or Religion is the process by which we breathe meaning into facts and form a judgment about “what is to be done.”

In fact, we can never “know” what is to be done. Everything about the future is uncertain, and that uncertainty is encapsulated in the findings of Kant that we cannot prove the existence of God, nor can we prove the non-existence of God. Similarly in the twentieth century, Kurt Gödel came up with his incompleteness theorem that states that the consistency of the axioms (the givens) in a system cannot be proved within the system.

That means that in order to prove the validity of the axioms of a system you must build a bigger system that tests the axioms of the smaller system. And so on.

Humans have come up with an ingenious system to deal with this radical uncertainty: Faith. We live out our lives on faith, assuming that certain things are true even though we can’t prove them to be true.

And even more radically, we have faith in reason. Why should reason and the application of reason in science be absolutely true? All we know is that reason works, provided it is confirmed by experiment, in all the science we have done thus far.

Reason is a very human tool for living in the world. How do we know that it is universal? We don’t. We just have faith in it.

James Webb's Class War

In his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Democratic Senator-elect James Webb gives us a look at the Democratic class warfare of the future.

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century.

When did Democrats ever stop worrying about inequality? Please, Mr. Webb.

And what’s all this about a class-based society? The 19th century was characterized by remarkable increase in population and wages among working people. And this unprecendented increase in the prosperity of ordinary people was founded upon the breakthrough achievements of businessmen in railroads, steamships, steel production, and oil extraction.

Those businessmen had names like Rockefeller, son of a snake-oil salesman, Carnegie, son of a hand-loom weaver, Stevenson, engine-man at a coal-mine, Brunel, son of an engineer. Not very elite, I’d say.

So why are you claiming that the 19th century was class-based, Mr. Webb? Did you mean that many of the discoveries and developments were made by men of very humble origin?

James Webb blames the nation’s elite for the inequality, and it is clear he blames the business elite rather than the educational, cultural, or political elite. They just don’t get the point of the deepening divide.

When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate.

They live in a different world, you see.

Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars.

To create a better world,

It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life.

Well, that’s your opinon, senator-elect, and you are entitled to it.

But for my money, I would hesitate to blame the business elite. They’ve reformed and reengineered their businesses again and again. That is why the U.S. economy is the most productive in the world.

But then there’s the Democratic elite: politicians, educators, and cultural content producers. It is their program of the last 100 years to make everything fair that has ruined the working class and made tens of millions dependent on Big Government for their livelihood.

Why do the rich send their kids to private schools? Because the government’s school are no good. And whose fault is that?

Why have the corporate pension plans collapsed? Because business and labor looted the corporations that promised the benefits and government stood by and let them do it.

Why are Americans losing their jobs to illegal immigrants? Because Democratic politicians and activists have prevented the enforcement of the immigration laws, thus making illegal immigration highly profitable.

Over the last century, Democrats have played a fine game, complaining about the results of their own policies and blaming it all on somebody else.

We are not going to let you do it this time, Senator-elect. It is people like you, with your cheap class-warfare rhetoric that are the problem, not the solution.

Baby-Boomers Break the Budget

What will happen as the baby boom generation retires? Will they break the budget and saddle Gen X and Y with enormous taxes and debt?

Or will the taxpayers of the era just say no?

Richard Fairbanks and Paul S. Hewitt rehearse the gloomy predictions.

Say what you will about global warming or Iraq, over the next generation no trend will more directly shape the substance of American politics than the looming self-impoverishment of legions of middle-aged, middle-class voters.

...

As recently as 2004, one-third of Baby Boomers had no financial assets.

The startling thing is that the largest share of the Baby Boomer retirement costs will be in Medicare and Medicaid:

Of projected new spending on the aged, $3 in every $4 will be in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

No doubt it is there that the government will try to economize. Especially if the Democrats succeed in nationalizing health care. No doubt it won’t be much fun being a health care professional.

Of course, what will happen is that the health care professionals will unionize and demand to be well-paid for doing not very much.

Goodness knows what that will do to the federal budget.

And goodness knows what that will do to the well-being of the aged.

The Boxed-in Democrats

When they were in opposition in Congress the Democrats opposed, ferociously. Now they are the majority, committed to increase subsidies for the already subsidized in education and health care, as provided in their New Direction for America.

But will their instinct to increase the welfare state be possible? Michael Barone has his doubts.

In their hearts, most elected Democrats would like to move us some distance closer to a European-style welfare state -- slouching toward Scandinavia, some conservatives might call it.

But they probably won’t be able to do so, at least not very much.

They want to increase the minimum wage, but very few people work at the minimum wage. They could increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, but they have kinda boxed themselves in with a “pay-go” rule that prevents tax cuts unless they are balanced by spending cuts.

Then there’s the Alternative Minimum Tax that is unindexed for inflation and deliciously hurts the rich, but hurts the liberal rich in blue states more than the conservative rich in red states.

Former Clinton aides like Gene Sperling are concerned about the insecurity felt by many workers. Yet the security offered by mid-twentieth century corporations isn’t likely to be on offer. Instead Sperling

is for a "universal 401(k)," which would give all workers tax-sheltered savings accounts, funded by employers and employees.

That sounds rather like President Bush’s reform of Social Security, that “Democrats scorned.”

Republicans may be downhearted at their mid-term losses, but more important than Republican positive self-esteem is national hygiene.

And national hygiene demands that Democrats stop opposing and start proposing. The problem is that first of all they have to break out of the box they have put themselves in.