Check out the “Barbie Girls” website flagged in the 7/23/07 New York Times piece about integrating MP3 players into toys.I’d love to hear critiques from a CST perspective.Beyond the obvious concerns about unabashed consumerism (my favorite feature is shopping for accessories for your pet), I was fascinated by the cultural implications of some of the mechanics as revealed in “tips for girls” and the message to parents.
“When you register, you create a screen name to use on the site. Because anybody in the Barbie GirlsTM world can see your screen name, you don’t wanna include your real name . . . Instead, make up something new and creative!”What are the cultural implications of play through screen names? Although there are obvious safety benefits, in this world of “fun, friends and fashion,” you are never yourself.
“If a girl feels that a friend or best friend is misbehaving, she can click “block” to keep that person from sending her messages. And she can instantly remove anyone from her room by clicking “ask to leave.”Here too, there are important safety concerns, but at the same time, how do instant “block” and “ask to leave” buttons change how they perceive relationships and friendships?
“We want you to make new friends, but we also want you to be extra careful about who you add as a friend, especially if you have never played with her before, in the real world, or online.”While there are tight limitations on random chat in the mall, “best friends” can chat more freely because they have actually met in real life.The definition of a “best friend?”: “To make one of your best friends in real life a best friend online, you both need to own a Barbie GirlTM. Connect your friend’s Barbie GirlTM to your computer and follow the on-screen instructions.”What does this say about what it means to make and be a “best friend”?
The moral dimensions of the “tips for girls” are fascinating.On one hand, there’s a constructive “golden rule” kind of message.“Always be nice to others!BarbieGirls.comSM is for everyone to enjoy, and that means treating others the way you wanna be treated.”“Don’t say anything mean, rude, violent, or untrue about anything or anyone. Also, don’t encourage your friends to say any bad stuff.”
But I’m not sure about the tendency to rely on 7-year olds to intuit when something is wrong, and act on that intuition:“It is always your responsibility to stop chatting or playing with anyone that makes you feel uncomfortable or that is misbehaving.”“We sometimes review chatting to make sure people are being friendly and safe and are following the rules. But because we don’t constantly monitor the site, you should “report” users to us who are misbehaving.”“You should also make sure that the other girls you play with or chat with follow the rules too.”What does this say about authority – and perceptions of autonomy – in kids who are still pretty little?
Would love to hear your thoughts – especially those of you who as parents struggle with the implications of these kind of media.I’m going to use the site as a springboard for a conversation next week with Focolare teenagers, who are part of their summer program are exploring how Catholic spirituality can sustain them in their everyday engagement with popular culture – I’ll keep you posted on their reactions and insights.
Here’s a nice plug for the book by Don Kerwin of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network: "This is a ground-breaking book and should be read by everybody who cares about the interplay between migration and development. Pistone and Hoeffner detail the contributions that skilled workers make to economic development and poverty reduction in their nations of origin. In an era characterized by globalization, they see the mobility of skilled migrants as a 'gain' for both sending and receiving nations, a gain that very directly addresses the root causes of migration."
As my summer teaching in Rome begins to wind down, and I begin to reflect on a wonderful summer and all the inestimable treasures of the Eternal City, I had to honestly weigh in the drawbacks and flaws of Rome as well. As I did so, it dawned on me that this city desperately needs a Mayor Giuliani.
While citizens of Roma cannot do anything about the summer heat wave oppressing southern Europe, the same cannot be said of the pervasive graffiti on every building in every part of the city, staining even the most beautiful and ancient of edifices; the ingrained culture of littering, under which every sidewalk, every piazza, every famous site is covered with discarded cigarettes, broken bottles, newspapers, and other trash; and the ubiquitous bands of pickpockets that swarm around most public places while the polizia stand by idly. Indeed, Rome is now seeing the rise of the squeegee men! If ever a city needed a mayor who accurately diagnosed the “broken-window syndrome” and who appreciated how giving attention to the supposed little things can dramatically change the culture of a city and make it more livable, that place is Rome.
Rudy, you’ve missed your calling. Based on your years as mayor of New York City and the resulting revival of Manhattan, you are uniquely well-qualified to bring about a rebirth of livability in Rome. I could never support your presidential candidacy, but you are the perfect candidate for Mayor of Rome. And in a city in which the communists and the fascists are both viable political participants, a little thing like not being a citizen of Italy shouldn’t stand in the way. You have the Italian heritage, and speak the language, so surely that's qualification enough.
Taking off from Daniel Suhr's remarks concerning abortion, Iraq, and proportionality, I wanted to make one comment. It's about the relation between prudence and proportionality in voting, something I've been thinking about ever since we had a conference on the role of prudence in the Catholic social tradition here at St. Thomas Law's Murphy Institute in April 2006. Daniel wrote that
being wholeheartedly against the War in Iraq is not a proportionate reason for being pro-choice. As Archbishop Myers reminded us in the run up to the 2004 election, the Pope did not bind the conscience of Catholics to oppose the War in Iraq - he merely expressed his own prudential judgement on the question. Moreover, as the Archbishop points out, we must remember what we are balancing here - the lives of 1.3 million unborn children in America every year. Virtually no other modern policy issue - not taxes, welfare benefits, minimum wage, farm subsidies, the war - compares on that scale.
My focus here is not on the second point in that paragraph -- that no other issue can compare to the lives of 1.3 million unborn children. That has been discussed before on the blog, and it is a powerful prima facie argument concerning proportionality (although one can question whether any policy that the pro-life community proposes will come close to saving 1.3 million lives, and also whether some policies widely opposed by Republicans -- such as access to contraception -- will prevent more of those abortions).
I want to focus on Daniel's (and Abp. Myers's) first point -- that abortion is matter of binding conscience for Catholics whereas Iraq is a matter of prudential judgment -- because I don't think that this argument logically shows disproportionality between the two issues. An issue could be prudential, in the sense that the Church doesn't take a position on it, and yet be overwhelmingly important. For example, suppose a voter is very knowledgeable on homeland security matters and, based on this knowledge, believes (i) that terrorists are very likely to try to smuggle nuclear bombs through a port, with a potential loss of millions of lives, and that (ii) the pro-choice candidate's plan for securing the ports is excellent and very likely to succeed while the pro-life candidate's plan is so inadequate as to create a huge risk. The Church doesn't take a position on how to secure ports, so this is "merely" a prudential matter at the relevant level of decision, but that doesn't mean that the ports issue isn't a proportionate reason for voting for the pro-choice candidate (not, as all the analyses of this make clear, because the candidate is pro-choice, but because of the proportionate reason of a grave threat to millions of lives).
Now, the fact that the Church doesn't take a position on some issue could be evidence that the issue isn't important. But it's pretty weak evidence once it's been acknowledged, as thoughtful people in both the magisterium and laity have done, that there are many issues on which the Church doesn't officially speak -- at least at the level of policy -- and instead leaves the matter to the better informed (and hopefully morally well-formed) judgment of lay people in their secular callings. "Prudential" logically does not mean "unimportant." The fact that an issue is prudential gives people discretion concerning it -- discretion, within reason, to disagree on its resolution -- instead of binding them to treat it as less important.
Again, this objection does not go to the "1.3 million unborn children" point, which I quite agree is logically about proportionality and would have to be answered, if at all, on other grounds. But I expect that the argument "X can't be proportionate because it's only prudential" will appear in upcoming discussion about the 2008 elections. So I offer this as a modest proposal for how to think about (not how to resolve) these issues.
Another MoJ reader points out that, since the 1991 lobbying work at issue, Thompson has:
come to a very firm pro life position. His Senate record from 1994 until 2002 was perfect; he was endorsed by the National Right to Life in both elections. I believe that his thinking on the matter further benefited from his marriage to a thoughtful pro-life woman, and the births of his two young children (with the attendant diagnostic technologies to view life in the womb, etc.). I think his recent public statements confirm this; he is unequivocally opposed to embryo-destructive research, abortion, etc. Check out his video to the NLRC.
As such, as to whether voting for Thompson could amount to material or formal cooperation with evil, "if a politician repents of a life-destructive view and goes on to consistently affirms pro life values for 15 years, it seems to me that supporting that politician doesn't raise any issues on that score, does it?"
Regarding Fred Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of abortion rights, another MoJ reader observes:
It seems to me that one cannot confidently equate the position advanced by a lawyer who zealously represents his client's interests and the public policy position such a lawyer might advance if elected to a legislative or executive office. In Senator Thompson's case, a more reliable indicator of how he is likely to execute his office if elected president is his record on abortion legislation while serving in the senate.
On a more theoretical level, would your query extend equally to a criminal defense lawyer who represents one accused of murder? How about a lawyer who represents a man seeking a civil divorce from his wife so that he might wed the woman with whom he had carried on an affair? Can the first lawyer, without contradiction, claim that he abhors murder and believes that those who commit it deserve to be punished by the state? Can the second lawyer justifiably claim that he believes in the sanctity of marriage? Perhaps, however, you believe that a faithful Catholic cannot be a criminal defense or divorce lawyer. Surely you wouldn't contend that a Catholic lawyer may only defend someone he is confident did not commit the crime of which he is accused or may only represent someone seeking a divorce whom he is confident will not remarry, lest he materially cooperate in the commission of sin?
The Boston Globe made a similar point about Thompson, reporting that Christian conservatives have "defended any work [Thompson] may have done as merely a lawyer working for a client."
First, let me be clear that I don't think a Catholic is morally precluded from voting for Thompson. As someone who has voted for only one pro-life presidential candidate (and that was mainly because, as a senior in high school, I was reacting to the photo of Dukakis in a tank), far be it from me to throw stones. There might be great reasons to vote for Thompson, his magnificent voice being near the top of the list.
But I resist any suggestion that we can look past the causes a lawyer chooses to take on. I agree that a position advanced by a lawyer's client is not the same as the policy position advanced by an elected official. And I would generally not find fault in a criminal defense lawyer who represents a guilty client. There are significant structural values furthered in those representations. But on the civil side -- especially on the lobbying side -- the structural values are less significant, and the market of lawyers is much more robust, at least for clients who can pay. As I've argued elsewhere,
When lawyers within a functioning marketplace introduce extralegal norms into the advice they give clients or as the basis for declining a representation, they do not close down the divergent paths by which the common good is realized. In fact, lawyers who bring conscience to bear on their professional identities can help expand and enrich the common good by challenging the presumptions of the governing legal paradigm, whether by critically engaging the substance of the positive law or the objectives that the client wishes to pursue through the positive law.
Granted, I still struggle with the implications of Pope John Paul II's statement that Catholic lawyers "must always decline the use of their profession for ends that are counter to justice, like divorce." At the very least, though, it's a clear signal that lawyers are accountable for the causes to which they devote their time and talents. That does not mean that lawyers should only represent "good" clients; often the value of the work derives from the overarching good made possible by the lawyer fulfilling his responsibilities in our system of justice. Approached by an abortion rights advocacy organization that could afford any number of high-priced lobbyists, I'm not sure what overarching good comes from accepting the representation. Again, this does not mean that Catholics should not vote for Thompson; but it has to be part of the inquiry if we want to take the moral dimension of lawyering seriously.
Marquette law student Daniel Suhr echoes Rick's misgivings about Casey Khan's moral analysis of voting for Fred Thompson:
First, let's not be too quick to judge what exactly Senator Thompson did or did not do while a lobbyist. As [yesterday's] Boston Globe points out, many leaders on the Religious Right have acknowledged the complexities of this particular question. And let's remember that Thompson's record on life issues while in the US Senate was stellar.
Second, there can be a proportionate reason in a primary - electability. As we all learned in the 2004 Pennsylvania US Senate primary between Senator Specter and Congressman Toomey, many reasoned, conservative Catholics like Senator Santorum believed that a candidate's chances of winning constituted a proportionate reason to support a pro-choice candidate. Many pundits and analysts say, with good reason, that Senator Thompson may be the GOP's best chance at holding on to the White House in 2008.
Third, being wholeheartedly against the War in Iraq is not a proportionate reason for being pro-choice. As Archbishop Myers reminded us in the run up to the 2004 election, the Pope did not bind the conscience of Catholics to oppose the War in Iraq - he merely expressed his own prudential judgement on the question. Moreover, as the Archbishop points out, we must remember what we are balancing here - the lives of 1.3 million unborn children in America every year. Virtually no other modern policy issue - not taxes, welfare benefits, minimum wage, farm subsidies, the war - compares on that scale.
As a primary voter, Casey is entitled to go for idealism. But Ron Paul is a non-starter as a serious candidate for president. I, for one, am looking for a candidate who is both ideologically compatible and electable. Senator Thompson, among other Republicans, fits that bill.
Commonweal magazine has this editorial about a recent speech by the President of the Catholic Theological Society of America in which he called for more dialogue, and less reflexive hostility, between and among Catholics who disagree. The editors write:
What dialogue will not obscure, of course, is that the differences among Catholics are not trivial. All the more important then, as Finn pointed out, to “meet for conversations not just with your allies but with your strongest opponents as well.” If there is to be any hope for an ecclesiology of communion, it is important that bishops, clergy, theologians, and the laity build personal relationships. The first step in building a relationship is to begin talking with one another, and the only hope for sustaining one is to continue talking.
Mirror of Justice: Catholic lawyers, who sometimes disagree, talking about non-trivial things, since 2004.
Dang. Although, as Rob reported earlier, Mirror of Justice made Joe Carter's list of the top religion-related blogs, it looks like we didn't make the cut at the London Times. (See Jean Raber's helpful correction to the list, here at Commonweal. Unfortunately, she also leaves off MOJ!)
