Cliffnotes of the Zeitgist Part 14. The Industrial Revolution and Child Care and other musings.

Children and Forced Industrialization

You've seen them here before, and yes, here they are again.  Migrant farm couples, 1938.

I've come to be simply amazed by the degree to which Americans are now acclimated to the concept that the government ought to pay for things, well, related to sex in some way or another.

Joe Biden's economic "relief" bill, which really addresses a topic that no longer really needs addressing, includes a big boost for pre K childcare.

Why?

To make my surprise, if that's what it is, more plain, what that means is that money will come from taxes (and loans) to help pay for the childcare of people so that they don't have to pay for it, directly, themselves.  

More bluntly, this will make it easier, which is part of what is being boosted as a reason to do it, for those with low incomes to have two working parents, as the thesis is that otherwise they'll have to make economic choices that will be difficult.

First of all, while it makes me sound like a Marxist saying it, isn't it clear that what this amounts to is the forced industrial employment of women?  What hte goal really is, is to make it easier for working mothers to work, which rapidly equates into forcing them to work, which is essentially what our economy had done over the past 70 years.  That is, we've converted from the early industrial revolution economy of forcing men out of their homes to work from eight to twelve hours per day to one t hat now requires women to do the same.  In order to do that we've subsidized all sorts of things to the benefit, essentially, of industry, and now we propose to go one step further.

Indeed, the irony of this is that this is where Marxist and Capitalist come back around and meet.  Early Marxists sought the dissolution of marriage and the collectivization of child care.  That has been regarded s horrific, but that's exactly what industrial economies have done over the past seventy years and the Biden Administration proposes to knock it up a notch.

This isn't just.

It isn't just to force women to leave their children in order to work.  It likewise wasn't just to do that in the case of men, but the level of subsidization evolved into force was lower in that case, although still very real.

It also isn't just to tax people in order to pay for the children of others, except in dire emergency.  People like me who have paid for and raised our own children are now being asked to pay for the care of children we don't remotely know, including children who are raised in circumstances which we wouldn't approve of.  If, for example, we can be taxed to pay for childcare for these children, can we also justly require that they be raised with basic sets fo values, including the value of a two parent home, which quite a few won't have?  No, certainly not, we won't be allowed to suggest that.

I feel this way, I'd note, on a lot of programs in this area, the long lasting ones which provide examples of why going down this path is a bad idea.  I've mentioned the "free and reduced" lunch and breakfast programs before, which directly transfers the duty of feeding children from parent to government.  I know that it had good intentions, all of these things have unthinking good intentions.  The proposals to wipe out student debt or provide free college education also have good intentions, and also are all massively subject to the law of unintended consequences.  What they also are, without it really being thought out, are subsidies for industry in varying degrees.

I know that the ship has sailed on many of these things, the strong evidence against doing them notwithstanding.  It's almost impossible to go back, once these steps are taken.  Americans may imagine themselves in some quarters as being rugged individualist, but even people who imagine themselves to be real libertarians acclimate themselves to such things pretty quickly.  But it is interesting to wonder what would happen if things went the other way.  I.e., if, save for K through 12 education itself, the government simply got out of this area entirely.  Feed your own children, provide for you own children, no subsidies for childcare of any kind, and not even any governmental bodies that seek to enforce child support orders.  Leave it up to the individual.

It'd be really rough for some at first, but I suspect pretty quickly a lot of the old rules would rebound once the burdens returned to the individual.  It might even do more economically than proposals to raise minimum wages would, as lots of families would be back to one breadwinner.

But no, we're just going to keep in marrying the government and making it the big parent.

I should note that probably right away, if anyone reads this, there will be a claim that this is radically traditionalist or something, or maybe anti feminist.  Feminism, I'd note, is a term that's now so broad to pracitically not have a meanning without further refining, but in any event, none of that is intended.

Indeed, I'd note that its already the case that the public sector has, in some instances, taken care of this much the same way that it took care of health insurance during the 1940s.  It's a recruiting incentive.  Some big firms of various kinds have in house daycares so their female employees don't have to worry about finding one and still being able to get to work.

In addition to that, at least by my observation, it's also the case that workplaces have becoming much more child friendly over the years, particularly in recent years.  I never observed children in working spaces when I was  younger.  Never.  Only farms and ranches were the exception.  Now I see them all the time.  Its not unusual at all for female employees to bring children into the office for one reason or another, often for long hours, and for that to result in very little notice.   Therefore, I really don't think that the claim "women will have to choose to go childless" is true, although that no doubt has an economic aspect to it. The poorer you are, the fewer the options.  It's one thing to bring your child into a business office. It's quite another to your job at the bar or restaurant.

I also don't think that this would ipso facto mean an increase in abortions.  Indeed, the current legal trends are towards increasing restrictions in this area as both men and women support increasing restrictions.  And social trends seem to suggest that younger people are less interested in acting like their grandparents who came of age in the 60s and 70s in this area in general.

What I do think, however, is that it forces choices up front and therefore vest "moral hazard" where it ought to be vested, at the individual level.  That probably reemphasizes some old values while combing them with the new economy, which should be done.

It probably won't be, however.

QAnon, Russia and China.

A new report conforms that Russia and China have had a significant role in QAnon's conspiracy theories.

D'oh!

Yup:

A Conspiracy Thesis about Conspiracy Theorist. Qanon is the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.

Sending Signals

Yes, you've seen this young lady here before as well.

The Natrona County Commission signaled its support by making the county a "Second Amendment Sanctuary County", which actually doesn't do that, and which actually wouldn't mean anything if they did.  

The actual resolution simply states they support the Second Amendment, which we already knew.

There are a lot of such bills circulating nationwide.  None of them have been tested yet, but as the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a case involving New York's restrictions on carrying outside the home, they effectively will be soon, which may be in the category of people needing to be careful what they wish for.

It should be obvious, fwiw, that local governments opting out of Federal laws, whether they be on firearms or immigration or whatever, can't really be done. The NatCo one doesn't attempt to do that, however.  It's more in the nature of a resolution.

Chow

1918 Trailmobile field kitchen.

I'd really like to try this:

Bear Bomb Burrito.

And this:

Chorizo Burger

And this:

Chili No Beans

Automated shuttle busses in Yellowstone

Electric shuttles are coming to Yellowstone.

Electric transportation is going to be everywhere really soon. This is obvious, even though skeptics still assert it can't happen quickly and that it won't be soon.  It's hear now.

Indeed, this has reached the peculiar point at which skeptics have gone from "won't happen" to "wont' happen soon", which is always the shark jumping moment in a debate.  Now, basically, the skeptics have agreed it will in fact happen, but not soon.

The most recent "not soon" argument comes about in the form of asserting that there are so many petroleum fueled vehicles on the road they can't be replaced soon.  And there's something to that.  Cars last a lot longer than they used to, but people still buy new ones.  Indeed, I'm about the only person I know who doesn't buy new ones.  The electric ones are going to come on quickly, quicker than skeptics would allow, and that process will accelerate as it comes on.

Put another way, lots of people today who have no plans to get an electric vehicle, and maybe even hold the opposite as their view, will begin to change their minds once a one shows up on a neighbor's driveway.  Once two electric vehicles show up, it really begins to change quickly.

Good and bad news from the census

People, and the press, get so used to viewing something one way that to do so in any other fashion is almost impossible, a fact amplified by the reality that the press rarely has a very good grasp on anything as reporters are generalists, not specialists.

The recent census reports that the US population grew at the lowest rate since the Great Depression.  That's really good news, even though the press seems to think it's bad news.

The country is at a point where its current population is probably higher than it ought to be for a host of economic and environmental reasons, but that would require accepting that adding population is bad for the environment, which it is, and that adding population tends to be bad for workers in an advanced economy.  In neither instance are too many willing ot admit that, even though it is true.

Indeed, the population of the US would now be probably declining, like that of much of Western Europe's is, but for our insanely high rate of immigration.  People don't like to admit that either.

As evidence of some of this the local entities that lament a lack of population growth are lamenting it.  Locals from here, however, with more of a grasp on things, are glad of it.

But not for the region. Colorado and Utah are both continuing to see insanely high growth which will convert them, over time, to Ohio. That's not really good.

"The Ethnic Parish"

The hard to photograph St. Joseph's Polish Catholic Church in Denver.

Last weekend, with both of us now fully vaccinated here, and all the kids vaccinated, even though they aren't living here but in the University Town, I went back to Mass and was glad to do so.

A speaker was there, which puts me in the odd situation of hearing a speaker on my first time back for awhile, due to the COVID dispensation.  He spoke on the annual Bishop's appeal.

Later that week I saw a Catholic Twitter feed in which the writer was celebrating the end of the "Ethnic Parish".

Which caused me to recall the Bishop's Appeal.

For modern Catholics in many areas who have never been to an "Ethnic Parish", which would include me to some degree, some explanation may be needed. What is meant by that is the situation which once was very common in which a parish was "Polish", or "Irish", or "German".  That is, most of the people there were from ethnic communities and their faith was part of their overall culture, supposedly.

I'm frankly, I'd note, slightly skeptical on that to a degree, or rather skeptical on the way that is so often presented.  These parishes were never as uniform as may be imagined, although there's certainly something to it.  Indeed, in various places, to include Wyoming, parishes were set up very near existing ones in order to accommodate the ethnic backgrounds of the parishioners.

In spite of what angry Rad Trads may imagine, there was never an intent, as far as I can tell, to wipe out the ethnic parish.  Parishes simply evolved.  And indeed the ethnic parish deep inside a happy Catholic Ghetto that Rad Trads imagine and want to go back to is often still there, it's just moved on ethnically.  Irish neighborhoods became Puerto Rican ones, and so on.  And that process continues on.  If you've been to a Byzantine Catholic church for example you'll find that they're now multiethnic.  Indeed, if you want a real effort to de-ethnicize parishes, the Eastern Orthodox provide a better example as in many places, both following fleeing parishioners from "main line" protestant churches, as well as in accommodating them, and also in simply recognizing they need to be less ethnic as "X-Americans" become "Americans with X heritage", they're making an intentional effort to remain Orthodox while not being tied to an ethnicity.

Still, like most myths, there's an inkling of truth here to a very slight degree, and what that is, is that over the past thirty years or so some have somewhat rejoiced in the decline in what they thought were ethnic parishes, which was also accompanied by the "we're all one family" type of atmosphere.  

Indeed, "Catholic" means "universal", and therefore we are all one family.  The Catholic Church may have had ethnic parishes, but overall, its the most diverse organization on earth by some huge measure.  So, for the historically minded, the recent push here to essentially create an ethnic parish is a bit surprising.  Effectively, its the recreation of ethnic parishes.

This has been going on for some time, in all fairness.  It just hasn't happened here for a really long time.  I frankly don't knw the last time it occurred, and in thinking about it the only really ethnic parishes I can think of are those in Rock Springs and Cheyenne.  A book published about the earliest parish here would have you believe that it was 100% Irish when it was founded, but that's simply incorrect.

Its that which drew my attention, really, to this matter.  It's pretty clear that the Bishop has decided that my old parish will be a Hispanic one.  I get what he's attempting to do and I'm not opposing it, but it does leave those of us who have deep roots there sort of homeless, although I probably only think that now as I've gotten sort of oddly sentimental as I've aged. Truth be known, while I was baptized in that parish, and both my parents had their funerals there, and our wedding was there, our second kid was baptized at the across town parish and when our kids were young, we went there as it was more convenient.  Even when I was growing up we often went to the nearby neighborhood parish due to its Mass times.

Indeed, as a kid our house was closer to that parish than the downtown parish, although vehicle wise it was more of a chore to get to.  They were effectively equidistant.  Where I live now they all are equidistant.  Anyhow, I find myself in the position of being hypocritical in commenting here, and both understanding and lamenting the change.  Having said that, I've already gone over to the across town parish as it has the earliest Mass and because I don't speak Spanish, which is increasingly becoming the utilized language downtown.

Artist Evolution and Blond Bombshells

Marylyn Monroe, who never went out of style, fairly obviously.

One of  the really interesting things about things about youthful musical acts, particularly female ones, is that, at some point, they must reinvent themselves or they cease to be.  "Madonna" can't be a nearly nude pop tart flirting with the profane forever.  Miley Cyrus has to evolve away from being "Hanna Montana".  Katie Perry couldn't apparently be a limited venue Christian singer.  Taylor Swift can't be a cute childish country star her entire career.  You get the picture.

Sometimes, I'm pretty convinced, a careful handler manages the evolution. Sometimes the artists do it on their own.  It's hard to know whether there's a Col. Tom Parker in the background all the time or not.

Billie Eilish is very clearly undergoing this.

I don't like her music at all, so I don't follow her much, but her visage is on my Twitter feed today and the pattern is now clear.

Eilish got started as a pouty seemingly semi distressed teenager who wore way too much clothing.  About a year ago, she started stripping herself of her clothing, and now she's let her hair go blond, if it is blond, or dyed it blond if not.  Anyhow, she's good looking in the 1950s Marilyn Monroe sort of way, which is to say full figured and good looking.  Her music not be changing, but she's plastered on the cover, apparently of the British edition of Vogue pretty much falling out.

I'm frankly of the view that her original persona was irritating.  I don't know what to think of this, however.  It'd be nice to think that a female pop artist could be out there without being, no matter what her songs may represent, sex.  That day, however, doesn't seem to have arrived.  At least she's clothed, however, and moving towards a highly glamourous persona.  Chances are some handler is purposely recalling Monroe, Loren and the early Cardinale in order to try to send the message that she's an adult.

One message she is sending is that there's a lot of "sexual misconduct" in the entertainment industry. This isn't news, but at least she's saying something.  Her comment to British Vogue basically read as an entitlement of sexual immorality, which would actually be a species of real progress coming from that quarter.  Perhaps its not entirely surprising, however, given that her generation has pretty much had it with things Boomer, of which the Sexual Revolution is part.

It's also interesting to see how the more classic concept of the female form has seemingly returned. Eilish isn't thin  and isn't fat, and is just nice looking.  If she can pull off not sounding and appearing like a Woke Siren, maybe that will be progress.  If so, she'll join some other recent female media figures who are making some shift uncomfortably in their seats, such as Keira Knightly.