Doug Henwood wrote: > > At 8:23 AM 7/1/96, Max B. Sawicky wrote: > > If people base their ethical and moral conclusions on "facts" that are > totally untrue, then those conclusions have no validity, as dearly as they > may hold them. The crime issue sure does hinge on both fact and theory, > unless you mistake glossolalia for revealed truth. For some questions fact and theory matter, for others not. The only relevant fact turned up thus far is that crime against children by non-family members is rare, ergo the risk to children from outsiders is too limited to make notification a justifiable practice. I have no reason to doubt that it is indeed rare, but that does not encourage me to participate in a daily lottery where I have a one-in-a-billion chance at a personal tragedy. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Okay. I'll answer Max's question. If I had kids (I do) would I want to > know if the guy down the street was a convicted child-molester? My answer > is -- not really. Why not? Because it wouldn't make any real difference > . . . > a public park, with adults present. Like most children these days, my > daughter is under constant surveillance. Would I be any more vigilant if > I knew a convicted child-molester lived down the street? No. In most > . . . > cases where the perpetrator is caught, he turns out not to have a prior > record. So I already assume that every stranger is a potential > threat to my child. Certainly every strange male. Well we differ on this. My daughter is also under constant surveillance, but since she's only three and naturally adventurous, that would be true no matter who our neighbors were. The question then becomes, what about when she gets older? What's the distribution of surveillance level given the child's age? The answer is obviously not clear-cut. Your answer is not the one I would give, but it is entirely plausible in its own right. One is obliged to make a judgment and in such zones of ambiguity, whether one would answer as you do or I would, the difference does not turn on facts or theory or my reactionary ideology but on personal choices which are not drawn strictly or by linear logic from any of these things. That's why I maintain that the left-based animus to this concern is overdrawn. > Moreover, as a progressive person, I recognize that the existence > of a few predatory child-rapists is not really the problem here. The As I said before, "the" problem is not one-dimensional. One small remedy need not preclude other larger ones. > question we should be asking. When people accuse Clinton of pandering, > it's because Clinton has done absolutely nothing to address the conditions > that create these problems. Where's his courageous stance on family leave, > reduction in work hours, funding for public parks and recreation > facilities? THESE would actually make children safer and parents calmer. Now in the interests of accuracy I have to defend Clinton again. Actually the Administration did not do "absolutely nothing" about family leave. They also tried to pass a "stimulus" package that included money for parks and the like for local governments. Their economists (the liberal ones) also believed that an 'export strategy' was the best way to raise wages. Obviously they might have tried to do more and their economics can be faulted, but the verdict of "absolutely nothing" doesn't wash. They certainly did little enough and gave us enough to criticize until the cows come home, but the level of condemnation is unworthy of the relative disadvantage of putting B. Dole in the White House to follow the lead of his 'idea man' N. Gingrich. I interpret your reduction in work hours as another way of saying higher pay and less implicit incentives to plus-40 hour work weeks. Is there really any support for the notion that such a change, or "giving America a raise," would address the problem we've talked about? How in the world would more parks and recreation facilities, fine things in and of themselves, be helpful? This gets back to the point that the broader the picture we draw of "the" problem, the less relevant we tend to get towards specific concerns. I think it could also be shown that, present company excluded, the left is quite indulgent of localist public demands of other types which fail in the same way to address "the" problem, but when crime concerns come up, we tend to get less indulgent, more 'radical', less relevant, and more politically isolated. Finally, I will go even further out on a limb and say that even if notification had no social value, there is something to be said for responding to b.s. from the other side with the better b.s. It can't be smart to function like Boy Scouts while the opposition practices Mafiosi tactics. Would that Clinton's facility in this respect was harnessed to greater purposes. This gets back to what I think is a naive view of how politics works, including effective insurgency politics from the left. After all the reverses we have suffered, I am always pleased when a Democrat fights dirty and beats a Republican. Obviously the same tactics could be turned against us, but that will always be true regardless of whether we condone it in others. If everybody signed an enforceable, 'clean politics' pact I would sign on too because I think a more rational debate gives us an edge, but I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation of such a development. M.S. ==================================================== Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
