The Black Princess Who Isn't Black Enough
Disney is coming out with a black princess, and the critics are coming out, too -- and we're not talking the professional kind. The question was asked (in a NYT article) whether she vanquishes stereotypes of promotes them. Um...can't she be just a cartoon princess with more cartoon melanin in her skin?
Apparently not. Here's an excerpt from one of the comments:
Though it's nice to see a Black Disney character, it would be nice for those of us of a darker hue and curlier hair to see more of ourselves represented in mainstream media.
-- marieizm, Mount Vernon, NY
You know, redheads aren't often "represented" in mainstream media -- or anywhere. Should I be up in arms?
Brooks Barnes writes about the black princess controversy in the NYT:
After viewing some photographs of merchandise tied to the movie, which is still unfinished, Black Voices, a Web site on AOL dedicated to African-American culture, faulted the prince's relatively light skin color. Prince Naveen hails from the fictional land of Maldonia and is voiced by a Brazilian actor; Disney says that he is not white."Disney obviously doesn't think a black man is worthy of the title of prince," Angela Bronner Helm wrote March 19 on the site. "His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage."
Others see insensitivity in the locale.
"Disney should be ashamed," William Blackburn, a former columnist at The Charlotte Observer, told London's Daily Telegraph. "This princess story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community."
ALSO under scrutiny is Ray the firefly, performed by Jim Cummings (the voice of Winnie the Pooh and Yosemite Sam). Some people think Ray sounds too much like the stereotype of an uneducated Southerner in an early trailer.
Of course, armchair critics have also been complaining about the princess. Disney originally called her Maddy (short for Madeleine). Too much like Mammy and thus racist. A rumor surfaced on the Internet that an early script called for her to be a chambermaid to a white woman, a historically correct profession. Too much like slavery.
And wait: We finally get a black princess and she spends the majority of her time on screen as a frog?
The first comment under the article said what I'm thinking about the race issue and the princess issue (I've written about how damaging I think princess culture is to girls -- the idea that some man will eventually "save" you if you just sit around waiting for him; no need to do any of that messy developing yourself stuff). Here's that comment:
No one assumes all white girls are like Snow White or Cinderella (and by the way, Esmerelda in Disney's Hunchback didn't look very white). Why must a black character have to represent the whole race? I do wonder why the Disney writers are so lacking in imagination that they jumped to a modern-sounding name after Madeleine didn't work out. Why not Marie? Marielle? Isabelle? Genevieve? But a Disney movie isn't the place to go for historical accuracy.Regarding a prince, Djimon Hounsou could be my prince any day, but back to the film. People can take their children to see it, or not. The bottom line is the very tired princess myth, packaged in a new wrapper, that teaches little girls that their worth depends on someone else. And the millions of dollars that Disney will make on the merchandise.
When my daughter was 3, she was an Ariel fan. At 18, she says the Disney villainesses have more character dimension than the princesses do. Ultimately, a Disney movie is not going to significantly impact anyone's world view. That's why we read, watch the news, have family discussions.
-- jh, johannesburg, south africa
It's A Real Education
And not in multi-culturalism or any other kind of hoohah. Mitchell Landsberg writes in the LA Times about three California charter schools that actually teach the kids:
Not many schools in California recruit teachers with language like this: "We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multi-cultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots, and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply."That, it turns out, is just the beginning of the ways in which American Indian Public Charter and its two sibling schools spit in the eye of mainstream education. These small, no-frills, independent public schools in the hard-scrabble flats of Oakland sometimes seem like creations of television's "Colbert Report." They mock liberal orthodoxy with such zeal that it can seem like a parody.
School administrators take pride in their record of frequently firing teachers they consider to be underperforming. Unions are embraced with the same warmth accorded "self-esteem experts, panhandlers, drug dealers and those snapping turtles who refuse to put forth their best effort," to quote the school's website.
Students, almost all poor, wear uniforms and are subject to disciplinary procedures redolent of military school. One local school district official was horrified to learn that a girl was forced to clean the boys' restroom as punishment.
Conservatives, including columnist George Will, adore the American Indian schools, which they see as models of a "new paternalism" that could close the gap between the haves and have-nots in American education. Not surprisingly, many Bay Area liberals have a hard time embracing an educational philosophy that proudly proclaims that it "does not preach or subscribe to the demagoguery of tolerance."
It would be easy to dismiss American Indian as one of the nuttier offshoots of the fast-growing charter school movement, which allows schools to receive public funding but operate outside of day-to-day district oversight. But the schools command attention for one very simple reason: By standard measures, they are among the very best in California.
...Among the thousands of public schools in California, only four middle schools and three high schools score higher. None of them serve mostly underprivileged children.
At American Indian, the largest ethnic group is Asian, followed by Latinos and African Americans. Some of the schools' critics contend that high-scoring Asian Americans are driving the high test scores, but blacks and Latinos do roughly as well -- in fact, better on some tests.
That makes American Indian a rarity in American education, defying the axiom that poor black and Latino children will lag behind others in school.
Read the whole thing.
Really, We Were
Discussing "The omission effect and the design of moral psychology" (which actually happened to be an interesting talk by Chapman U. post-doc Peter DeScioli that I went to Friday afternoon). 
I'm at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference. I'll blog some of the talks next week, probably. Just as soon as my friend (who happens to be a very brainy evolutionary psych prof) and I can pull ourselves out of the hot tub.
Oh, and more on how I have slut toes after the author e-mails me her paper.
Why You Don't Beat Somebody To Death For Grabbing The Last Can Of SpaghettiOs
I'm live-blogging this from the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference, an annual gathering where anthropologists, ethologists, psychologists, and evolutionary psychologists from around the world present their work.
We don't need religion to keep us from stealing, raping, and killing and committing lesser crimes against other humans. We have evolved adaptations that prevent us from doing it.
Here's Haidt's definition of morality, from this morning's plenary that Penn prof Rob Kurzban (a young researcher I've known since he was a grad student at UCLA) is giving now:
Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.
Kurzban points out the actions that are deemed altruistic are often not -- quoting Adam Smith:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Kurzban and Peter DeScioli are doing some really interesting work trying to fill in holes in the literature on cooperation, reciprocity, and punishment. Some of their work relates to the underpinnings of my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE, One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society (October 30, 2009, McGraw-Hill). One of their papers, now in press, can be read here.
Here are the conclusions from his plenary:
In the question and answer session after Rob's talk, he said he defines morality as "a system that evaluates acts on a scale of wrongness." (And he doesn't mean in the logical sense, of course.)
On a related note, Haidt's work on "elevation," a word he borrowed from Thomas Jefferson, is very interesting, and almost made it into my book. Here's a quote from the Haidt link just above:
Elevation is elicited by acts of virtue or moral beauty; it causes warm, open feelings ("dilation?") in the chest; and it motivates people to behave more virtuously themselves (to "covenant to copy the fair example").
Haidt's most recent book is The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom
My question: While there are reputational benefits from acting generously (if people are watching), why do people feel good, or even elated or "elevated," when they do generous, prosocial acts? I don't think anyone's answered that. And I'm asking from an evolutionary standpoint -- why would we have evolved to have this feeling?
Rob says, "elevation is evolution's way of rewarding you for doing an act that will improve your reputation."
Make Crime Pay Us Back
By doing something I've always thought we should do -- charging criminals for their jail stay. Tracy Loew writes in USA Today:
Get arrested in Springfield, Ore., this fall, and you might spend the night in jail -- then get a bill for your stay.The city plans to charge convicted criminals up to $60 a night, depending on their ability to pay, when a new 100-bed lockup opens in October, Springfield Police Chief Jerry Smith says. Thus, the city could recoup most of its cost of about $70 a day.
"These people are the ones who cause the cost to operate a jail, so they ought to be the ones to pay it, not private citizens," Smith says.
The economic recession is spurring several local governments to turn to pay-to-stay programs, says Sara Totonchi, public policy director for the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, which fights legislation that imposes such fees on inmates.
"In these difficult economic times, policymakers are looking for different options to save money," Totonchi says.
Oh, boohoo. You do the crime -- don't expect me to pay for your time. And that has nothing to do with the way our elected and appointed idiots mismanage our tax dollars and our prisons.
And while we're at it, I think criminals should have to stay in jail until they earn money to pay restitution to their victims.
Religion Hurts
People talk about all the comfort religion provides the sick and dying. Personally, I feel comforted knowing that there's no evidence I will end up anything other than worm food, because it means I live my every day to the fullest. From Science Daily, a study by Holly Prigerson, soon to be published in JAMA, found that being religious can increase terminal patients' suffering in their final days:
In a new study of terminally ill cancer patients, researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that those who draw on religion to cope with their illness are more likely to receive intensive, life-prolonging medical care as death approaches -- treatment that often entails a lower quality of life in patients' final days....The study involved 345 advanced cancer patients at seven hospital and cancer centers around the country. Participants were interviewed about their means of coping with the illness, their use of advance care planning tools such as living wills and durable power of attorney, and their preferences regarding end-of-life treatment. Investigators then tracked each patient's course of care during the remainder of his or her life.
An analysis of the data showed that patients identified as positive religious copers had nearly three times the odds of receiving life-prolonging care, in the form of being on a ventilator or receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation, in the final week of life. Even after researchers accounted for the influence of important factors such as age, ethnicity, or other coping techniques, the connection between religious coping and aggressive EOL care held up.
The researchers also found that religious copers in the study were less likely to have completed advance medical directives, such as a living will or do-not-resuscitate order, which can limit the extent of such interventions in advance. The effects of religious coping on the use of intensive medical care in the last week of life remained significant even after adjusting for differences in advance care planning.
Purple Reign
Jacaranda trees on the Cal State Fullerton campus, where I'm attending this year's Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference. I'll try to blog some of the sessions in the next few days. Some really interesting people presenting some really interesting work here.
What "Equal Rights" Would Look Like
Jodi Kasten makes some great points. An excerpt:
Feminism is all about each woman having the right to choose her own path. We should be allowed to do whatever we want in this life and not be judged by society's arbitrary sex roles, right? Absolutely.What about men? Do they enjoy this right?
Some examples:
Bob and Jane are a middle class couple. They have two children. They get an amicable divorce. There is a custody hearing. Both of them are good parents. Both of them want to be the primary custody holder. Who gets the children? Seriously, every single time, unless Jane lights up a crack pipe in the courtroom she will get physical custody. Bob is expected by society to be happy with every other weekend and two weeks in the summer. Don't believe me? What would you think if you heard that a woman only saw her children every other weekend and a few holidays? I PROMISE you would think, "What did she do to lose her kids?" But, with men, that's just the way it goes, right?
What message does it send to men about what sort of fathers they should be when it's made clear by the courts and their ex-wives that their most important contribution as fathers is a timely child support payment?
Even in less weightier arenas men lose out. If you drive by a house with a dying lawn, is your first thought about what a crappy homeowner the WOMAN is who lives there? Doubt it.
How about at work? Women can openly talk in the break room about the hot new guy in Receiving. What kind of pigs are the men who talk about the hot new manager who happens to be a woman? If a woman asks a male co-worker out on a date, the worst that can happen is rejection. For a man, the worst that can happen is the loss of his job and a sexual harassment suit. Is that gender equality?
Thanks, Deirdre!
Honesty In Welcome Mattage
Problematic Passages From Sotomayor
From a speech she gave, printed in The New York Times:
No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice.
This is the language of victimism, identity politics, and the form of racial discrimination known as affirmative action.
I prefer Justice O'Connor's thinking (although Sotomayor, who references her, says "Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle"):
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.
That's true -- when the man and the woman act as as shepherds of the law, not of a particular race or races or special interests. Sotomayor goes on:
I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects.
Does he? Or is it just judicial thought? Lawyers and legal thinkers who pay attention to Supreme Court decisions, do try to answer that. She continues:
Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.
This sounds rather like a warning. And then there's this:
...I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
I would like to have a Supreme Court Justice who will judge on Constitutional grounds, and I find the above statement tremendously offensive.
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Again, she isn't running a baseball league; she's being nominated for the Supreme Court. I want a judge who takes her experience studying the law into account when she judges, and tries to leave her personal experience behind. Otherwise, we get decisions like Ricci, which Sotomayor adjudicated. From my blog item on it:
Let's Stop Racial Discrimination In Hiring And Promotion
A bunch of white firefighters were promoted ahead of black firefighters even though the black firefighters got better test scores. Outrageous, right? Disgusting, huh? Plain old wrong, isn't it?Remember what Martin Luther King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..."
Damon W. Root in reason on Sotomayor and Ricci, and Sotomayor and the Second Amendment:
Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes--a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton--to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments.
Finally, there's this from Sotomayor:
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?
Well, if you're a good judge, very little.
Girls Who Know Better Than To Wear Old Sweatpants
Two girls outside Starbucks on Sunday. This one was amazed that I wanted to take her picture, as she'd just come from yoga. I told her more women should look like they'd "just come from yoga." 
I think this one was from someplace like Brazil. 
Too many American women complain to me that they can't get boyfriends, yet can't imagine that their running around in big ugly pants and big ugly shoes, with no attention to their hair or face would have anything to do with it. A more European approach that's mostly true (and partly in the service of selling beauty products): "There are no ugly women, only lazy ones." -- Helena Rubenstein.
Showing Their True Colors
Why should I be interested that a nominee for the highest court in this land has a vagina and happens to be of Hispanic origin? I'm getting press releases like this one from the U.S. African Chamber of Commerce:
Hispanic Female Supreme Court Justice - Good Move President ObamaWASHINGTON, DC-- U.S. African Chamber of Commerce Congratulates U.S. President Barack Obama has nominated a female, Hispanic federal appeals court judge to replace a retiring Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Obama announced the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday at the White House. If confirmed, the 54-year-old Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic judge on the nine-member high court.
Sotomayor, who was born in New York to parents from Puerto Rico, would replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring this June after 19 years on the high court.
I wish I could believe Obama chose Sotomayor because she's the best person for the job.
Hilariously (to me, anyway), the U.S. African Chamber of Commerce has a link to a "white paper" on their site.
Why You Shouldn't Hold Your Baby On A Plane
Bring a car seat and buy a separate seat for your baby, lest he or she end up like this lady. Can't afford a seat for your baby? You can't afford to go.
Remember.
Thank you to those who gave everything to keep this country free, safe, and democratic.
A Big Howdy To All You Muslim Ladies Out There
If you are a legal immigrant who appreciates Western values and wishes to join Western society, by all means, melt right in. If, however, you hail from a primitive culture where women are considered possessions and your religious leaders advocate husbands beating wives who get a little out of line, and you're cool with all that, well, why would you want to leave Saudi Arabia for the land where men cordially greet women in the halls of their apartment buildings, and other such Western barbarism?
There's an astonishing story in the Canadian Nat Post about a man who was reported to his landlady for -- get this -- saying hello to his Muslim neighbors, one of whom happens to be a woman. Matthew Coutts writes:
When the landlady of my Toronto apartment building said an outraged neighbour had filed a complaint about me over an apparently inappropriate hallway interaction with his wife, my mind raced through the countless conversations I've had with fellow tenants, none of which seemed a possible source of offence.It turns out, it wasn't a salacious transaction that had caused the complaint, but rather a neighbourly and -- to me -- entirely forgettable greeting, little more than a brief "good morning" as I passed my neighbours on the way to work.
Still, it was enough of an affront for the man -- once a doctor somewhere in the Middle East, my landlady clarified -- to feel I had broken a cultural taboo. The incident started an awkward feud which has involved warnings not to repeat my indiscretion and one face-to-face shouting match, which included allusions to my impending death.
Muslims so often take the high road. Of course, their Quran commands them to convert or kill the infidel -- even the friendly, hello-saying infidel -- so the offended, allegedly death-alluding doctor is really just being a good Muslim if he is indeed offering these death threats.
As somebody who smiles at strangers and says hello to them with frequency, I just love the absurdity of this complaint. The cordial neighbor script, Islam-style, apparently goes something like this:
Western man to Muslim man and his Muslim wife/possession:
"Good morning, neighbors!"
Muslim man: "I will behead you, Western dog!"
Western man: "And y'all have a nice day, too!"
Bizarre Segregation In Georgia
Sara Corbett writes in The New York Times about a vile tradition in the South -- the racially segregated prom. At Montgomery County High School, there's a black prom and a white prom:
Earlier this month, on the Friday night of the white prom, Kera Nobles, a senior who is black, and six of her black classmates drove over to the local community center where it was being held. Standing amid a crowd of about 80 parents, siblings and grandparents, they snapped pictures and whooped appreciatively as their white friends -- blow-dried, boutonniered and glittering in a way that only high-school seniors can -- did their "senior walk," parading in elegant pairs into the prom. "We got stared at a little, being there," said one black student, "but it wasn't too bad."After the last couple were announced, after they watched the white people's father-daughter dance and then, along with the other bystanders, were ushered by chaperones out the door, Kera and her friends piled into a nearby KFC to eat. Whatever elation they felt for their dressed-up classmates was quickly wearing off.
"My best friend is white," said one senior girl, a little glumly. "She's in there. She's real cool, but I don't understand. If they can be in there, why can't everybody else?"
The seven teenagers -- a mix of girls and boys -- slowly worked their way through two buckets of fried chicken. They cracked jokes about the white people's prom ("I feel bad for them! Their prom is lame!"). They puzzled merrily over white girls' devotion both to tanning beds ("You don't like black people, but you're working your hardest to get as brown as I am!") and also to the very boys who were excluded from the dance ("Half of those girls, when they get home, they're gonna text a black boy"). They mused about whether white parents really believed that by keeping black people out of the prom, it would keep them out of their children's lives ("You think there aren't going to be black boys at college?"). And finally, more somberly, they questioned their white friends' professed helplessness in the face of their parents' prejudice ("You're 18 years old! You're old enough to smoke, drive, do whatever else you want to. Why aren't you able to step up and say, 'I want to have my senior prom with the people I'm graduating with?'").
In the slide show within the NYT piece, one white girl's mother argues that it's always been this way for the kids at the school, and should remain this way. Disgusting. Ugly.
And what's particularly disturbing is that the racism is right there under the surface, which makes it no uglier -- in fact, to me, it makes it more disturbing.
Taubes Talks To The Muscleheads
Josef Brandenburg interviews Good Calories, Bad Calories
TM: Let's get to the most controversial point: You say that eating extra calories won't make people fat.GT: The assumption that fat tissue isn't regulated at all is almost naive beyond belief. Every other part of the human body is well regulated, but fat tissue is just this garbage can that all these empty extra calories get dumped into. And it just happily expands, despite having these deleterious effects all over your body.
The idea of homeostasis, where you want to keep the internal environment stable regardless of what else is happening, was first discussed in the 1860s by a French scientist named Claude Bernard. Are our fat cells somehow exempt from this?
As you get fatter, homeostasis gets thrown out of whack, because among other things, fat is a good insulator. So your body starts getting hotter. Now you have to cool it down in ways you didn't have to before. You start sweating, and when you lose body fluids, the salt content in the blood gets higher. All kinds of things start going awry when you start getting fatter.
It makes absolutely no sense that your fat tissue wouldn't be regulated, and yet these people believe that obesity is all about calories.
If you look at animals, all animals regulate their fat tissue very carefully. You can't just force animals to overeat and make them fat.
TM: Really?
GT: They won't do it. The only animals that will get fat by dietary means are very carefully bred rats in laboratories, and house pets that don't eat the foods they evolved to eat.
If you've ever looked at cat food, it's packed with carbohydrates. And yet cats are carnivores in the wild. Felines don't eat carbohydrates. They eat meat. That's what they do. And yet we take then into our homes, we feed them carbohydrates, and lo and behold, they get fat.
The argument I'm making is that [obesity is] a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not of sloth and gluttony. Overeating is the side effect of the disorder, not the cause. What you want to know is, what regulates fat accumulation?
...TM: So what's regulating the growth of the fat tissue?
GT: The answer, which we've known since the early 1960's, is insulin. Insulin is the hormone that primarily regulates fat accumulation. If you want to get fat out of your fat tissue, you have to lower your insulin levels.
And insulin is regulated for all intents and purposes by the carbohydrates in our diet. That's the simplest possible hypothesis. The physicist would call it "the zero-order approximation."
Other hormones play roles, and most of them work to get fat out of the fat tissue, but they can't do it if insulin levels are elevated. Adrenaline, growth hormones, all these things work to make you leaner, but they don't work if insulin levels are elevated.
And this has never been controversial. That's the weird thing.
TM: That's never been controversial?
GT: No.
TM: That carbohydrates make you fat?
GT: Well, that insulin makes you accumulate fat, and that carbohydrates regulate insulin levels.
Read the whole thing -- terrific piece. Again, Taubes' exhaustively researched book is Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health
Read Taubes, and you'll understand that you don't have to kill your knees running four miles a day like this nitwit. (Exercise makes you hungry.) There are the usual inaccuracies presented as "fact" in the above-linked article, like the notions that fat is bad and "high-calorie foods" cause obesity.
People who eat for emotional hunger, not just physical, may want to supplement Taubes book with this excellent book, which helped me eat only when my stomach needs food, Diets Don't Work
Dr. Michael Eades' blog is here (good stuff on how to eat in between the personal posts). And another excellent blog is Sandy Szwarc's Junk Food Science, where she debunks a lot of the crapthink about what we eat and are afraid to eat.
A post I got a lot out of is Szwarc's piece on the safety of bacon and other nitrite-containing food. (Not to give away the ending, but I just finished my cheese omelette and two strips of bacon, made in the microwave in a Corningware dish with a lid, to keep the fat in -- because, without fat in your diet, you get hungry!)
Szwarc also references Taubes on salt here, and notes "the body of evidence has not demonstrated that low-salt diets result in health benefits for the general population, nor that current salt intakes of Americans pose health risks for the general population."
interview via Eades
Ethical Standards Made Of Lycra?
The NYT's ombud, Clark Hoyt, posted today about a number of issues. On the issue of the econ reporter with the house in foreclosure, not surprisingly, Dean Baquet, formerly of the LAT, sees no problem with having a reporter covering economics who shows little personal understanding of the topic:
Baquet said he saw no conflict in Andrews's personal situation and his beat, but he knew that some people would perceive one, so he tried to minimize the reporter's involvement in "covering things directly related to the housing collapse." Andrews told me: "I shy away from articles about the pros and cons of this approach or that approach in aiding homeowners. I would have too much at stake."
I'm with this guy:
After an article adapted from "Busted" was published in last week's Sunday magazine, Bradley Laue, a lawyer in Greeley, Colo., asked how Andrews could continue covering economics. Laue said it would be "like me being disbarred and then reporting on the ethics of lawyers."
Here's Hoyt's entirely unsatisfactory passage about Maureen Dowd (and her stolen, not borrowed, words. Unless...is there some chance she's going to give them back?):
Borrowed wordsLast Sunday, Dowd's column on Dick Cheney and torture picked up a paragraph, with one minor word change, from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, without identifying the source. Another blogger noticed, and the Internet was soon aflame with charges of plagiarism.
Dowd said she had not read Marshall's Web post, but was talking with a friend who suggested the wording without telling her where it came from. An attribution was added to the column online, and The Times ran a correction the next day.
Her explanation was unconvincing to some. How could a friend -- whom Dowd has not identified -- repeat verbatim a 42-word paragraph? I heard from readers demanding that Dowd be fired.
Dowd told me the passage in question was part of an e-mail conversation with her friend. She noted that she had credited two other bloggers for other information in the column, so there was no reason to intentionally slight Marshall.
Marshall posted his view: "We're too quick to pull the trigger with charges of plagiarism." He said he didn't think Dowd acted intentionally, and the correction was "pretty much the end of it."
I do not think Dowd plagiarized, but I also do not think what she did was right.
Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, said journalists collaborate and take feeds from each other all the time. That is true with news articles, but readers have a right to expect that even if an opinion columnist like Dowd tosses around ideas with a friend, her column will be her own words. If the words are not hers, she must give credit.
Well, okay then! (That was effective.)
The comment I left under Hoyt's piece:
Maureen Dowd's refusal to come clean on this suggests revealing the truth about what she did (have somebody else writing her column?) is more costly for her than sticking with the lame obfuscation.Ethical standards should not be made of Lycra. If the NYT fires people for plagiarism, Dowd should be fired, despite her draw for readers. Regardless, readers deserve to know what really went down here, and we have yet to be apprised.
Oh, and I'm with the reader above who noted the petty way of referring to The Atlantic's Megan McArdle as "a blogger for The Atlantic." The WSJ did this to me in the past in a similar case, when I was pretty much the raison d'etre for the story, and what I did was described within. It was just too painful for them to actually credit me, so the writer simply ignored the "Who" part of the "5 Ws" of journalism. If a blogger does the work, the blogger should get the credit -- by name. -Amy Alkon, syndicated columnist and blogger, advicegoddess.com
-- Amy Alkon, Santa Monica, CA
Life Before Baby Einstein Videos
Was reading the op-ed pages of the NYT when I spotted this blog comment in the recent comments section on the side:
"How in the world did I ever grow up and become an Army officer, an engineer and a published author? I had no play dates, wasn't breast fed, had no Baby Einstein videos, and my mother didn't sing to me when I was in her womb."--Jumper, South Carolina
Are You Feeling Reproductive?
So many people have such romantic notions of what it means to be a parent. Afsaneh Knight writes in the Times of London about the way some people fall into having children:
How many long-term couples do you know who have chosen not to have children? I know one. And she, the female half, successful, sexy, and happy as she is, is constantly having to deal with nonplussed reactions, or, worse -- "Oh, I'm so sorry" -- when asked if she has children.The rest of us get pregnant. Because having babies is just what you do, isn't it? You go to university, you get drunk, you find a boyfriend, you graduate, you get a job, you split up with your boyfriend, you run around the place, you get promoted, your ambition stirs, you meet someone and discover you love him, you buy a car, you move in together, you get a mortgage, you get engaged, you have a party, you go after a better job, you get married, you survive Christmas with the in-laws, you have a baby. It's just what you do.
It shouldn't be. Ask a neurosurgeon why he or she went through 12 years of medical school, and the answer is unlikely to be "It felt right" or "It was the next obvious step". Being a parent is as much -- more -- of a vocation as a doctor, a lawyer or a teacher, yet we enter parenthood on a flimsy combination of romance, conformity and competitiveness. None of these is a good enough reason.
I have a friend (a much-lauded barrister) whose driving motive for having her first baby was that, at 36, she was "not getting any younger". Not a good enough reason. She is now trying for her third because she "wants a boy". Not a good enough reason. She once didn't see her two daughters awake for a fortnight because of her work hours. But, of course, had she chosen not to have children she would have been to the world at large an oddity, pitiable and slightly unnatural.
Two years ago another friend panic-married a man she hardly knew. She left her home, work, family and friends in California, where she had been brilliantly happy, to move to London with this new, nice fella, to have wedlocked babies. A baby duly came, spent the first six months of its life howling, and his mother spent that time in bewildered misery, looking at this small, sweet, screaming thing that she had never wanted. "You must have wanted him," I say, "to have left everything behind in California." She shrugs and screws her forehead up. "The time had come. I just had to bite the bullet and do it." Why? Why on earth?
My Bearded Friends
One happens to be a lady. Karen A. Page and Andrew Dornenburg, who make cooking gourmet food accessible even to culinary losers, won the 2009 James Beard Book Award for Reference and Scholarship for their book The Flavor Bible: The Essential Guide to Culinary Creativity, Based on the Wisdom of America's Most Imaginative Chefs
Now available again on Amazon (it was, not surprisingly, sold out for a while). P.S. That's where you have to do the "look inside" thing.
The Car Of The Future
Cars will be smaller. Much, much smaller. Hilarious video.
via Insty/Bainbridge
The Latest In School Stupidity
The girl is guilty -- of using a poor tool for eyebrow maintenance: the eyebrow trimmer. (It's the tweezers, not the mower, you should be using, dear.)
But, to be suspended from high school for bringing a beauty tool? KDKA has the story of 15-year-old Taylor Ray-Jetter's crime against dumb school rules:
"I want to be an anesthesiologist -a nurse anesthetist and I feel like it's going to be on my record so it's going to dampen a lot of things I wanted to do for myself and I'm very upset," she said. "I did not come up there to hurt anybody."Taylor is a member of the basketball team, 9-year Girl Scout, a youth usher, a member of the choir and leadership team, among other activities.
The superintendent says the tool is a weapon and Taylor's punishment is all apart of a very strict zero tolerance policy.
I've seen these things in the drugstore, and on infomercials, and one is pictured in the piece linked above. You might give Lucy a really ugly trim with the thing, but danger to other students? You could stab somebody and do more damage with a pen. Do we ban writing implements? How about cars from the school parking lot?
via Overlawyered
On Our Side
A fascinating piece in the LA Weekly by Swedish journalist Diana Ljungaeus and her American husband, Frank Megna, about an Iraqi on our side whom U.S. officials pulled funding and support from, blowing his cover, and then refused to help flee Iraq:
Among all the Iraqis who aided American forces, few proved to be more valuable and fewer still risked as much as Faris Al-Baghdadi (his name has been changed by L.A. Weekly). From 1988 to 1998 he served in Saddam's Air Force. Eventually, he was arrested, charged with disloyalty (trumped-up charges, he says), and tortured by Saddam's military. Exiled to Iran in 1999, he returned to his native country after the 2003 American invasion. He worked as a translator and quickly impressed his American employers, who promoted him to lead a secret "special-ops squad," a clandestine pro-American Special Forces team composed solely of Iraqis who sometimes masqueraded as insurgents or criminals.But Al-Baghdadi suddenly lost his cover in 2005, when the U.S. pulled his funding and support. Two enemy assassination squads tried to kill Al-Baghdadi, military officials tell the Weekly, yet U.S. officials failed to cut through the red tape to help him flee Iraq, and refused him and his family the refuge of a permanent home in America.
It was his U.S. Marine comrades, acting entirely "on a volunteer basis," who aided him, through a harrowing and dangerous escape from Iraq. He was left to his own devices by the U.S. Department of State, and his family ultimately found a safe haven not in the U.S. but in Sweden.
Still loyal to America -- or, more accurately, loyal to what he now calls "the idea of America" -- Al-Baghdadi kept offering his help, until the Marines invited him to train U.S. troops in California. Through the persistence of one USMC major, U.S. authorities realized Al-Baghdadi's worth and allowed the "asset" -- but not his family -- to come here. Today, Al-Baghdadi, with his adopted tribe of warriors near San Diego, is Semper Fi and gung ho. But during off-hours, often spent on weekends with friends in Los Angeles, he rages with disillusion and loss.
U.S. officials confirm Al-Baghdadi's story and agree that he represents much of what is wrong with America's handling of "foreign national assets" from Iraq. His leading U.S. Army Special Forces mentor, who asked not to be named for security reasons, says, "Al-Baghdadi always got the mission done for us by going anywhere, regardless of how dangerous it was for him to get the information we needed." Al-Baghdadi narrowly missed being killed by two exploding IEDs and "joked about how working for me was dangerous to his health," the mentor notes.
Al-Baghdadi' story suggests that official bungling and indifference damaged U.S. efforts in Iraq and now threaten to break a man who did everything, including killing countrymen, because he believed in American-style democracy.
Verizon Wireless And Heartless?
Verizon refused to help an Ohio sheriff's department triangulate a missing man's cell phone until Sheriff Dale Williiams paid his overdue $20 phone bill. Nancy Schaar writes for the Times-Reporter:
After some disagreement, Williams agreed to pay $20 on the phone bill in order to find the man. But deputies discovered the man just as Williams was preparing to make arrangements for the payment.The sheriff organized the search party for the man after deputies responded to the domestic call Wednesday at 2:21 p.m. at the Kensington Rd. residence. The sheriff said the caller said the man was destroying the house and breaking windows and other items.
But when deputies arrived they were told the man had fled and had taken several bottles of pills.
"I was more concerned for the person's life," Williams said. "It would have been nice if Verizon would have turned on his phone for five or 10 minutes, just long enough to try and find the guy. But they would only turn it on if we agreed to pay $20 of the unpaid bill. Ridiculous."
Williams said he doesn't know how close the situation was to becoming a tragedy because he's not a doctor, but he thinks the man's condition was very serious.
Maybe it's tacit company policy, maybe it's just one dumb, heartless bitch or bastard working for Verizon, who knows. The reporter doesn't seem to have called Verizon to find out. Why the sheriff didn't ask for a supervisor and the supervisor's supervisor, if need be, is another mystery. Maybe this reporter should have gone to curiosity school (I'm not for journalism school, and you might've known that, had the L.A. Times not cut the attribution out of my thoughts they printed on Sunday, making them look as if they came from the reporter who asked me for them.)
via ObscureStore
Scam On Wheels
Here we are, so in debt that people's grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying off the bills for all our porkulus, and all they can do in Washington is throw a few billion dollars more on the national credit card bill at every turn.
The latest scam out of Washington is the cash for clunkers program, in which you buy any 2009 model passenger car, and if it gets just 4 m.p.g. better than whatever you're driving now, you could snag $3,500 from the rest of us taxpayers. Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang write in the LA Times:
And if your new vehicle produces more significant improvements in fuel economy over your old vehicle's -- 5 miles per gallon more for trucks and 10 miles per gallon more for cars -- you could get $4,500....At its worst, the bill would in effect allow a guzzler-for-guzzler swap: Scrap a pre-2002 "work truck" weighing more than 8,500 pounds (and some of the most gigantic Dodge Rams or Ford Super Duty pickups fit that description) for a new 8,500-pound behemoth, and a $3,500 subsidy is yours. And there are no mileage questions asked -- it's presumed the newer models will have better mileage and qualify, even if it's as little as a 1-mile-per-gallon difference.
The cost of all this to the federal Treasury? As much as $4 billion. For the additional red ink the bill would produce in the federal budget, shouldn't it contain something really green?
The White House has blessed the bill. It is emerging in coming days from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills).
The auto industry's most powerful advocate in Congress, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), has argued that the legislation would "result in hundreds of thousands of new vehicles being purchased across the country."
Never mind that these cars are already built and would eventually be sold, without federal incentives. The only question is: for how much?
Germany has tried a similar program. The Abwrackprämie, or "wreck rebate," began in January at a cost of 1.5 billion euros -- about $2 billion. Car companies have come to rely on it and have successfully demanded its extension. The sticker price has reached 5 billion euros, with no end in sight.
Jos Dings, director of the European Federation for Transport and Environment, an environmental advocacy group in Brussels, calls it a "methadone program for addicted automakers."
Your Porkulus Dollars In Flight
It's a breeze to get through security at Murtha airport, because there's nobody there, which didn't stop John Murtha from funneling MILLIONS of our taxpayer dollars there. By the way, we also subsidize every passenger.
The Chemo Kid And His Idiot Parents
I haven't blogged about the kid whose nitwit parents fought giving him chemo to treat Hodgkins Lymphoma, a highly cureable form of cancer, because they believe in "natural" remedies, because I'd blogged about this issue a while ago. It seems pretty clear that parents don't have the right to sentence their child to death because they're morons.
Oh, and by the way, the last time I blogged about a kid in a similar position, one of the relatives of the kid bought up a website in my name and threatened to use it. I was finally able to buy it back.
Anyway, here's a bit on the story from CNN below, in the wake of the mother making off with the kid so he won't be treated with evidence-based medicine. What's particularly disgusting is the way CNN reports I heard on TV treat nitwit alternative medicine as if giving the kid ionized water will have any other effect than allowing him to die.
As Drs. Marcia Angell and Jerome Kassirer wrote, "There cannot be two kinds of medicine- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work."
From CNN.com:
Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkin's lymphoma. In February, the cancer responded well to an initial round of chemotherapy, but the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who then opted not to pursue further chemo and instead sought out other medical opinions.Court documents show that doctors estimated the boy's chance of five-year remission with more chemotherapy and possibly radiation at 80 percent to 95 percent.
But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment.
In a written statement issued last week, an attorney for the parents said they "believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time."
Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.
"You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."
What occurs to me that would help kids going through chemo is to have peer advisors, kids who have made it, maybe college kid volunteers, to help counsel them on the process.
Racquetball...Or Jihad?
It seems the dimwit prison converts to Islam who plotted to blow up the temple my friend Steven E.'s family belonged to when he was a kid, plus the Jewish center in Riverdale, just needed a hobby. How lovely that the death cult that is Islam was available to provide them with an alternative to jogging, woodworking, or soccer. From The New York Times story by Javier Hernandez and Sewell Chan:
The shadowy figure of the F.B.I. informant is, in many ways, a driving force of the plot laid out by prosecutors. The informant, who has been cooperating with the F.B.I. for the past six years, first met with Mr. Cromitie at the Masjid al-Ikhlas, a mosque in Newburgh, in June 2008. At that time, Mr. Cromitie told the informant that he was interested in returning to Afghanistan. Mr. Cromitie spoke about how, if he were to die a martyr, he would go to paradise, the complaint said.A month later, the informant lied to Mr. Cromitie, telling him that he was a member of Jaish al-Mohammed, a terrorist organization based in Pakistan. Mr. Cromitie said he would be interested in joining up "to do jihad." The informant, who audio and video taped many of his meetings with the defendants, later told them that the surface-to-air missiles and explosives were provided by the terrorist group.
Nancy Rommelmann's take on this: "FBI goaded 'terror' suspects to act? Supplied fake weapons? Story smells nine ways from Sunday."
The "Criminalization" Of Illegal Immigration
About time, huh? Of course, Amnesty International talks about that like it's a horribly cruel thing, not an absolutely fantastic idea -- especially as my state of California, illegal immigrant central, is broke beyond belief. My pal Heather Mac Donald writes at NRO:
As I was reading this relatively heartening story about the Obama administration's plan to check all jail inmates for immigration status, the fun part was calculating the odds that the illegal-alien lobby would oppose even this no-brainer program. I should not have been so naïve. There was no chance that they wouldn't object to the program. Verifying the immigration status of arrestees could lead to the "criminalization" of illegal immigration and to immigration checks in other arenas, warn Amnesty International and immigrant advocates, according to the Washington Post. Straining even further for reasons to oppose this modest, commonsense policy, Tom Barry, an analyst for the Center for International Policy, a nonprofit research and policy institute in Washington, said the initiative "could sweep up foreign-born U.S. residents who have served time for offenses but were not deported."So there you have it, for the illegal-alien lobby, even murderers and rapists should be shielded from the cruel and inhumane reach of the U.S. immigration law. Better that one hundred citizens be held up at gunpoint than one illegal alien be deported. Though the illegals lobby appears to have lost on this round, their constant affirmation of the idea that deportation is inherently unjust remains the dominant trope in media coverage of illegal immigration. The lobby's continuing influence means that when Obama gets his amnesty through, the chances that those illegals who don't qualify for amnesty will actually be deported are slim. And that in turn means that the chance that the amnesty will do anything other than encourage more illegals to come is zero.
Milton Friedman noted that you can't have open borders in a welfare state. Robert Rector writes, also at NRO:
It takes the entire net tax payments (taxes paid minus benefits received) of one college-educated family to pay for the net benefits received by one low-skill immigrant family. Even Julian Simon, the godfather of open-border advocates, acknowledged that imposing such a burden on taxpayers was unreasonable, stating, "immigrants who would be a direct economic burden upon citizens through the public coffers should have no claim to be admitted" into the nation.
What Iraq Will Cost Us
Hugh Fitzgerald writes over at Jihadwatch, "Medicare and Social Security Benefits To Be Cut? Blame the Failure to Understand Islam." While the ultimate costs for the war are likely to be beyond staggering, and he's right about our approach to Islam and Iraq, I think the problems with Medicare and Social Security, which will run out in the 2030s, can't be stuck on this war. An excerpt from his otherwise excellent piece:
The huge sums that continue to be spent on Muslim countries should also include the two trillion dollars -- Joseph Stiglitz, with a Nobel Prize in Economics, offers a higher estimate -- already spent, or committed to being spent on the war in Iraq. Stiglitz believes that when such expenses as lifetime care for tens of thousands of severely wounded American soldiers are factored in, the true cost for the war in Iraq to American taxpayers will be close to three trillion dollars.And for what result? How has the Camp of Islam (a camp that unites only on -- but that is quite enough -- its hostility to all Infidels, and in the deep belief that Islam has a right spread all over the world, and then to become dominant everywhere, so that Dar al-Harb becomes enrolled in Dar al-Islam) been weakened by our Iraq venture? So far it has not been. And in fact, the Bush Administration, once it realized the justification for the war, the weapons of mass destruction, were not to be found, rapidly changed its goal, and presented it, in terms always vague and confused, as being that of what I have called the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project. In that Project, American intervention, and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in American aid went to Iraq, a country that has the second largest, or even perhaps the largest, oil reserves of any country in the world, but apparently no one dared suggest it borrow against future earnings. This was done in order to keep Iraqis united (by bribing some to end their insurgency) and prosperous. And that this prosperous and unified Iraq would bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" -- as if "freedom" could be dropped from a plane onto the waiting Cargo Cultists below, who would simply pick up the parachuted packages and enjoy their contents without having to modify their own views, their own Muslim beliefs and what those beliefs mean for the possibility of a real, advanced, Western-style democracy, with guarantees of individual freedoms and legal equality for all.
Part of this strategy was either to ignore the deep-seated violence and aggression that guarantee -- I guarantee it -- that Iraq will descend once again into violence, sectarian and ethnic, no matter how long the Americans continue to hold on, or what sums are poured into that country, or, if the sectarian and ethnic fissures were recognized, to do everything possible to minimize them, to bind up these fissures, rather than to regard them, soberly and coldly, as offering a way to divide and demoralize and thus to weaken, the Camp of Islam and Jihad.
...The messianic sentimentalism of George Bush, who is grateful to "religion" (Christianity saved him from alcoholism and life as a scapegrace), caused him to regard anything to which the word "religion" was affixed with a deep respect. He could not allow himself to believe that Islam was not a "religion" like any of the others. He could not recognize that it was not "extremists" but mainstream Muslims who accepted Islam in toto, its politics and geopolitics. They accepted Islam as a Total Belief-System that attempts to regulate every area of life, and that is based on a central idea: the division of the world between Muslim and Non-Muslim, Believer and Infidel, and the necessity of permanent hostility toward the Infidel by the Believer, and the duty of "struggle" or "jihad" to remove all obstacles, everywhere, to the dominance of Islam.
Really Smart Stuff From Sally Pipes On Obamacare
K-Lo interviews Sally Pipes, author of The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care
We all agree that our goal is affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans. The question is how best to achieve that goal. First, insurance does not equal access to health care, especially if that insurance is government-provided. Medicaid is a perfect example. It offers a comprehensive benefit package far in excess of even the most lavish private plan. Yet due to low payments to physicians -- the very price controls that government leaders want to impose system-wide to control costs -- Medicaid patients often struggle to find doctors. The same is increasingly true for seniors under Medicare. Insurance does not equal access to quality health care, and access to quality health care does not require lavish insurance. That point is lost in this debate....Health care is a necessity of life, similar to food, clothing, shelter, and to some degree transportation in modern America. It's not a right, as traditionally understood in our constitutional system informed by the great truths of the Declaration of Independence's promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The American Revolution was fought and based on the natural rights of man. Society should be organized to assist individuals in providing these things through the protection of property rights and keeping taxes low so Americans can make their own decisions on how to spend their money rather than putting government in charge. Unfortunately, supporters of government-run health care and the mainstream media have been telling the American people that health care is a right, and that view has been gaining significant momentum over the last few years.
... When people say health care is a right, there is the underlying notion that it should be provided at zero price at point of consumption, or, worse yet, no cost at all, ever. This is impossible, as doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other providers in the system can't be expected to work for free. We don't expect other necessities to be free or provided by the government or paid for collectively. In fact, we'd be horrified if they were provided this way. A little known fact is that of all of life's necessities, save clothing, health care is by far the least costly. It's not until Americans become senior citizens that the average household spends more out of pocket on heath care than entertainment and dining out. Yet we don't decry the crisis in restaurant bills, football games, and rock concerts.
... Of the almost 46 million Americans counted as uninsured by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14 million of them are eligible for existing government programs but have not signed up. Another 17 million of them are earning over $50,000 a year but do not buy insurance because they feel it is too expensive. Two-thirds are young people between 18 and 31 who consider themselves "invincible." They would buy insurance if it were cheaper and available to cover catastrophes, which is why one has insurance. Because 64 percent of Americans get their insurance through their employer and insurance is not portable, many of the uninsured are just between jobs and hence counted as uninsured, even if they are only uninsured for a short period of time. There are only about 8 million uninsured that need some assistance.
Twit$: Capsule By Cavanaugh
A New York Times economics reporter is incapable of balancing his checkbook. Edmund L. Andrews tells his tale here. But, save your time! Tim Cavanaugh has kindly posted the one-minute version over at my favorite magazine. (Tim, ya gotta do more of these.) An excerpt from Tim's excerpts:
Patty was brainy, regal, sexy, fiery and eclectic.[...]
[A] small but stately brick home in a leafy, kid-filled neighborhood in Silver Spring, Md. We sent in an offer of $460,000 and one day later got our answer:
[...]
Having separated from my wife of 21 years, who had physical custody of our sons, I was handing over $4,000 a month in alimony and child-support payments.
[...]
Patty had yet to even look for a job.
And so on...
Designer Shoes, Up To 80% Off At Amazon
Times are tough here in advicegoddessland (a little less so thanks to all of you who buy through my Amy's Mall links, which I completely appreciate), but if times aren't so tough for you, perhaps you'll want to take advantage of a big sale at Amazon -- designer shoes, 80% off
FYI, these are winter shoes on sale now -- and if times weren't so tough, now is when I'd be buying. I typically buy everything off-season, because I have my own style and don't follow trends.
Also, I go to the shoemaker on Main and Pico, Alex Shoes, and wear my shoes and boots for years and years. My favorite pair of high-heeled cowboy boots, I've had since 1992. He's been resoling them ever since. My backpack I lug my computer around in, I also bought that year, from The Original Leather Store in New York. It was expensive back then, $99, but I prefer to buy wonderful things that last. And, so far, it's cost me only $150, total, after having Alex put on a new leather tie and fix it up twice. Think of how much you've spent on backpacks alone, over the years, and maybe rethink how you shop.
If Only I Could Get Rob Reiner's Phone Number
I found his address in the Malibu Colony, if that's still current (I have my ways), but no number. I dug it up because the asshat was the recorded voice on a robocall I just got about a couple California propositions.
I just love the notion that it's okay to invade my home, use a phone line I pay for, and hijack my time (I was taking a nap before I go back to writing) because it makes it cheaper for you to shill for your cause.
I don't care that this is what's done by many, or that our paid-off legislators have made this legal (as if some charity call or political call is any less interruptive than one about getting your carpets cleaned). It's the height of rudeness to insert yourself so forcibly into my home. You want to put your point forward? Send me a fucking letter. Yeah, it'll cost you more money. And this is my problem why?
Oh, and if you happen to have Reiner's number -- and you're sure it's his number (I most certainly do not want to bother any innocent people) -- please e-mail it to me so I can call him at home and let him know how I feel on a few issues...starting with cheap assholes who think it's acceptable for them, as total strangers to me, to make an electronic device in my home make a screeching sound so they can steal my time to promote their agenda.
A Big Piece Of Plagiarism Stuck To Her Shoe
Josh Micah Marshall of TPM on Thursday:
"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."
Maureen Dowd in Sunday's NYT:
"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."
From HuffPo's Marcus Baram:
Dowd claims that she never read his blog last week but was told the line by a friend of hers. In a follow-up email, she forwarded her desire to apologize to Marshall, writing that had she known, she would have gladly credited Marshall.
josh is right. I didn't read his blog last week, and didn't have any idea he had made that point until you informed me just now. i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow.
She gives this absurd excuse like it's actually an excuse of some sort -- copying somebody else's words from an e-mail, and then using them as her own, without attribution.
Let's say this ridiculous-sounding story is true, that a friend e-mailed her those words. Did she ask permission to use them? It seems she didn't, since she would likely have been told they weren't her "friend's" had she asked. So, either way, it seems she plagiarized somebody's words.
I'm very, very careful when quoting people. If I transcribe an interview, I put quotes around the person's words and attach the name to the quotes. If I take notes from a book, I put in the page number, author's name, and quotes around the statement to make sure I don't end up putting words that aren't mine in my column as mine. Here's an example (please excuse the errors -- copied verbatim from my notes. If I use a quote, I go back to the page and make sure I've got all the words right):
Hrdy- p 495 - hunter gather children - "infants from birth are passed among multiple aregiveers with whom they become very familiar and are quite at ease. Far from growing up less secure, such infants are if anything more so."
Bowlby, she writes, had the "purely practical observation that it is 'verydifficult to get people to look after other people's children.'" This, Hrdy writes, "is the crux of the matter." And can be solved by having mothers care for the children.
It takes longer to take it down being meticulous about noting that I'm quoting someone, but if you're serious about being honest, it's just what you do.
And recently, I used one of Pirate Jo's jokes from the comments section. I have plenty of my jokes of my own, and I wanted to give her credit -- something like "like commenter Pirate Jo from my blog said," but it would've killed the joke. I explained that to Pirate Jo who okayed my using it (just the part in italics below):
That's why you walk the walk (right out the door when it gets boring), unlike those who only talk the talk: "If you love something, set it free..." but if you REALLY love something, make sure it gets bogged down with a bunch of legal hassles if it ever tries to leave.
Yes, even when it's just a joke, you really have to take this stuff seriously. Should Dowd lose her job for this? Should the NYT make her present that e-mail she supposedly got? And who here thinks she's been dishonest and who here just thinks she was sloppy?
via Nancy Rommelmann
Buy Glasses Online, And Try 'Em On First
This site, EyeBuyDirect, has a special feature where you upload your pic and try their glasses on. I love it! It's a little rough, but you can shrink or enlarge your photo so the glasses fit and you can move the glasses around on your face. Be patient, you'll get it eventually.
There's a discount there now, too, through the TechBargains link, 30 percent off all orders until 5/24, with the discount code techbar30. Yay! You can be frugal while avoiding bumping into things.
P.S. I'm on deadline or I'd upload a few of my try-on shots.
Kickback The Habit
Reason's Nick Gillespie writes for The New York Times about legalizing drugs, prostitution and all forms of gambling, and taxing them. Beyond the fact that we need the money, and that consenting adults should be able to sell their bodies if they want to, get them high if they want to, and make wagers if they want to, allowing all of this is a wise idea for bringing the crime rate down:
As the history of alcohol prohibition underscores, there are also many non-economic reasons to favor legalization of vices: Prohibition rarely achieves its desired goals and instead increases violence (when was the last time a tobacco kingpin was killed in a deal gone wrong?) and destructive behavior (it's hard enough to get help if you're a substance abuser and that much harder if you're a criminal too). And by policing vice, law enforcement is too often distracted at best or corrupted at worst, as familiar headlines about cops pocketing bribes and seized drugs attest. There's a lot to be said for treating consenting adults like, well, adults.But there is an economic argument as well, one that Franklin Roosevelt understood when he promised to end Prohibition during the 1932 presidential campaign. "Our tax burden would not be so heavy nor the forms that it takes so objectionable," thundered Roosevelt, "if some reasonable proportion of the unaccountable millions now paid to those whose business had been reared upon this stupendous blunder could be made available for the expense of government."
Roosevelt could also have talked about how legitimate fortunes can be made out of goods and services associated with vice. Part of his family fortune came from the opium trade, after all, and he and other leaders during the Depression oversaw a generally orderly re-legalization of the nation's breweries and distilleries.
There's every reason to believe that today's drug lords could go legit as quickly and easily as, say, Ernest and Julio Gallo, the venerable winemakers who once sold their product to Al Capone. Indeed, here's a (I hope soon-to-be-legal) bet worth making: If marijuana is legalized, look for the scion of a marijuana plantation operation to be president within 50 years.
Legalizing vice will not balance government deficits by itself -- that will largely depend on spending cuts, which seem beyond the reach of all politicians. But in a time when every penny counts and the economy needs stimulation, allowing prostitution, gambling and drugs could give us all a real lift.
Now, That's Cachet In These Parts
Love how former New Yorker editor Hal Espen described my man Gregg in his very engaging Los Angeles Times story about Elmore Leonard's latest crime novel, Road Dogs
First came a commitment to research. In 1978 he got an assignment from the Detroit News Magazine for a story on Squad 7 of the Detroit Police Homicide Section. His 6,000-word feature, "Impressions of Murder," is a masterwork -- and a core sample of the uncanny voicing and reporting that infuses every book he's written since.Next, Leonard hired former autoworker Gregg Sutter as a researcher. Sutter, based in L.A., serves up what he calls "a big banquet of data" that enhances the "production values" of Leonard's books. Leonard has never owned a computer. Sutter is better than any computer. He produces exhaustive dossiers, photographs locations and shoots video interviews. He'll find out exactly how to break into a Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. All this results in precisely rendered details and characters who sound real and know what they're talking about.
And yes, he really did work on an assembly line for a while. And right now, he probably knows more about the Somali pirates than most people on this planet -- in preparation for Elmore's next book, Djibouti. There's a lot I could say about Gregg, but I'll say only two things: He's the best person I know, and I sure lucked out.
Racism Comes In All Shades
More skin color stuff in the news. The model Iman wasn't black enough for some, according to an AFP story about her Sunday interview in Parade:
Iman, 53, also told Parade that her rise to catwalk superstardom did not free her from racism."You suddenly represent a whole race, and that race goes, "Well, that person does not represent our ideals of beauty." For lack of a better term, it becomes what it was like during slavery," she said.
"One had the field nigger and the house nigger. There was this notion that I was chosen by white fashion editors to be better than the rest, which I am not. I did not like being thought of as the house nigger."
Nobody Has Anything On American Music
Except, from time to time, the American blues-influenced Brits. Without Robert Johnson and the rest, they'd all be singing, well, like this guy below. Check out this year's Eurovision winner, from Norway:
Note how desperate they are for the guys doing pushups all over the stage, and why.
Mamas, Teach Your Daughters To Wear Panties On Picture Day
Via trueslant, a girl decides to go panties-free in order to avoid having pantylines in school photos, then whoops, sits like a farmer when her picture is taken, either revealing her vagina or a big vagina-like shadow.
Mommy expects the school to pulp the yearbooks and eat the cost. Apparently, she feels the student yearbookies and their teacher/advisor are supposed to double as The Underwear Police. Mommy and daughter feel the incident (not the fact that they're going on TV about it and thus making it news to bloggers around the globe) is ruining the daughter's life.
I have no proof of this -- it's just my intuition -- but I think I smell a case for Overlawyered in the distance.
Thanks, Lindsey!
The Wrong Color African-American
I've joked to a friend, born in South Africa to American parents -- white American parents -- that he's African-American. And really, he is. But, a white student, born in Mozambique and now a U.S. citizen and a student at the Newark-based University of Medicine and Dentistry said that about himself (when asked in what sounds like some awfully P.C. cultural class exercise) and was penalized for it.
Oh yeah, and he also wrote an article for the school newspaper that I wish I could get my hands on -- titled "A More Colorful View Than Black and White" -- an attempt to explain his description of himself and call for tolerance at the school.
As somebody who'd like to see us become a "post-racial" society, I think that sounds just great. And I love that he described himself as African-American. I find the term and the way it's applied just ridiculous. I have a friend, deep brown as dark chocolate, who was born in Saint Lucia. She is a black person, but she is not African-American, and it's technically wrong to call her that.
Also, while I'd call her "African-American" if she wanted me to (and she's never referred to herself that way or asked to be referred to that way), I don't want people to call me "German/Polish border-American and half-Russian-American." I'm American and really, really advantaged to be one, as is any American of any color, because there's a level of opportunity here for people of any color or class that you find nowhere else in the world. And while there's discrimination against various people, many people have it tough in some way: they're born very homely, or very poor, for example. I think people would be hard-pressed to name a European country where an Oprah could rise as she did. Yet, on college campuses we're still mired in P.C. and racial division -- and colleges like the one in the story seem to be working as hard as they can to maintain that racial division.
More, from the Sarah Netter story on ABCNews on what's now happening to Paulo Serodio, the subject of the story, who has filed a lawsuit against the school:
Serodio told ABCNews.com that he believes that America has outgrown the labels of black and white, something he wrote about in the article.His own children, he said, are of mixed ethnicity European and Chinese. In his own case, he said, "There's a distinction to be made here between ethnicity and being from Africa."
...The lawsuit claims Serodio tried to stop publication on the newspaper article, but was too late. In response, the professor of the latter cultural class posted a reply on the bulletin boards at the medical school stating that Serodio "had failed to learn professionalism and humanism."
That's when, according to the lawsuit, the harassment, some physical, began in earnest. According to the lawsuit, Serodio's tires were vandalized in December of 2006, other students put up posters slamming him and he was denied protection by the school.
In January 2007, Serodio was made to promise he would never again write in any public forum at the school at the risk of facing disciplinary action, according to the lawsuit.
But Zeff said that the same month, his client was designated as the person who would take notes from a particular class for posting online, as was customary. The notes, Zeff said, contained a few jokes and comments as was typical for students who posted notes online and had been approved by the class professor.
But after a fellow student complained, the same professor that approved the notes filed a complaint about their content, according to the lawsuit, and school officials demanded that Serodio submit to a psychiatric evaluation.
The evaluation was given in April 2007 and Serodio was declared "fit for medical student functions," according to the lawsuit. But after a disciplinary hearing on April 1, which consisted of testimony from anyone claiming to be offended by Serodio's comments, he was notified of his suspension.
The lawsuit claims Serodio was suspended on May 15, 2007 for a period "of not less than one year."
Messages and e-mails left with Duncan and Cohen as well as UMDNJ Dean Dr. Robert Johnson were not returned.
His suspension, which Serodio said was for "unprofessional behavior," meant he was unable to take the board exams reserved for students preparing to enter third year and therefore could not transfer elsewhere to continue his education even though he completed all the second-year coursework.
...Serodio told ABCNews.com that he was technically reinstated last spring, but it was too late to start his third year because he still had not been allowed to take his second-year exams.
"I feel unprepared now," he said. "That was very penalizing to me."
So Serodio said he decided to take a year's leave of absence to spend time with his children and get things sorted out with the school, while trying to stay current on his studies for the exam.
The lawsuit is asking for reinstatement to UMDNJ and to the National Board of Medical Examiners so Serodio be allowed to take his board exams. The suit is also asking for recognition that UMDNJ's actions were discriminatory and retaliatory and for unspecified monetary damages.
Just after I posted this, I opened my e-mail and found a link to this Walter Williams piece, "Race Talk." An excerpt:
Race talk often portrays black Americans as downtrodden and deserving of white people's help and sympathy. That vision is an insult of major proportions. As a group, black Americans have made some of the greatest gains, over the highest hurdles, in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind's history. This unprecedented progress can be seen through several measures. If one were to total black earnings, and consider black Americans a separate nation, he would find that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation -- that is just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans are, and have been, chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, who headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black American. Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else.
Steyn On Fire
Mark Steyn gave an inspired talk at Michigan's Hillsdale College, a private school my parents used to go to in the summers for their lecture series. An excerpt:
In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood--health care, child care, care of the elderly--to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct....Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.
And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%--ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.
I don't understand why people can find giving up their autonomy and being bled for tax dollars so attractive. Well, I do -- it's the antithesis of the entrepreneurial spirit -- it's the delusion that government will take care of you better than you can. It's those who don't really understand government and what's possible who can cling to that delusion.
Gregg and I had dinner with my wonderful, brilliant friend Barb Oakley, an engineering prof from Michigan's Oakland University, and her husband Philip last night. At one point, Barb, who worked as a translator on a Russian trawler in the Bering Sea, was noting that the people who find communism or socialism appealing are those who have zero experience with it. I think she's right -- it's like the lettuce-for-brains types running around in Che shirts.
I have a few friends who are Russian and one friend who's Cuban, and if you think they have any sort of sentimentality or anything but loathing for communism and all it brings with it, you're out of your gourd.
And about Barb, if you want a great read, pick up her book Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
Giving Back The Occupied Territories
This one, via Ben-David, on the comments on another entry, deserves a post of its own. A link to Dry Bones -- "When Bibi Met Obama."
LA Press Club Awards Finalists Announced
I'm a finalist in a few categories (see below). (100K refers to circulation -- over 100,000 circulation...I run in large and small papers.) Awards are giving out in mid-June. Here's hoping! In the second one, I'm up against my friend and reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch, a formidable candidate, who's doing an amazing job (the LA Times sure was dumb to let reason snap him up)!
A1. Journalist of the Year (Over 100K)
*Amy Alkon, syndicated columnist.
*David Evans, Bloomberg Markets.
*Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal.
*Patrick McDonald, LA Weekly.
*Christine Pelisek, LA Weekly.A2. Journalist of the Year (Under 100K)
*Daffodil J. Altan, OC Weekly.
*Brad A. Greenberg, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles
*Anna Scott, Los Angeles Downtown News.
*Matt Welch, Reason
*Amy Alkon, Creators SyndicateB5 Commentary
*Amy Alkon, Creators syndicate, Advice columns
*Mariel Garca,The Los Angeles Daily News, Editorial
*Robert David Jaffe, Los Angeles Times, Op-ed
*Devra Maza, The LA Daily News, " Love on the Lines"B6: Columnist
*Amy Alkon, Creators syndicate, Advice columns
*Gendy Alimurung, LA Weekly, "LaVida"
*Jonathan Gold, LA Weekly, Column
*Dennis McCarthy, Los Angeles Daily NewsB10. Headline
*Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate", Apocalypse Eventually"
*Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate, "From Beer to Eternity"
*Peter Fuertes, LA Daily News, "Deep-Sixed"
*Peter Fuertes, LA Daily News, "Pac-to-Pac-to-Pac"
*Peter Fuertes, LA Daily News, "Safety Concern"C10 Headline Writing
*Amy Alkon, Creators Syndicate
*Jon Regardie, Los Angeles Downtown News
*Steve Silkin, Los Angeles Business Journal
*Kevin Uhrich, Pasadena Weekly
Full list of finalists here (at the bottom of the awards post).
It's The Fact You Took Five Years Off, Not The Fact That You're A Woman
Martha Neil writes in the ABA Journal about a study that suggests it isn't whether women lawyers have children but whether they stay home with them that "accounts for a widely reported gender gap between the salaries and partnership prospects of male and female attorneys at many law firms":
A study of data concerning graduates of the University of Michigan Law School showed no significant difference between men and women who had children yet didn't interrupt their careers or work part-time to take care of them. However, it revealed a significant gap between those attorneys and their colleagues--both male and female--who put their careers on pause for several years to stay home with the kids, says law professor Kenneth Dau-Schmidt of Indiana University at Bloomington."Gender was secondary, and much less important, than whether they had interrupted their careers to do child care," he tells the ABA Journal.
A lady lawyer comments on the ABA site:
I sort of agree with this one and sort of not. I'm a female associate, been out of school 6 years and with my firm for 4. I had my first child in January.I took 6 weeks maternity leave and am now back full time and working full hours. There are intangible things that have changed. Over the last year, I haven't participated in as many happy hours with my bosses and colleagues (due to being pregnant and now having a wee one to pick up at day care). I am preoccupied during the work day to the extent that there is little to ZERO time to talk shop or discuss cases the way I used to. And I already know that come December I will be criticized for my billable hour count...
And then there's the preferential assignment issue. I used to frequently take day long travel assignments and have been told by several partners that they don't want to give those to me because I probably need to stay in town to be close to my baby. I have been passed over for one trial opportunity becuase "I probably don't want the long hours, you know, now that I"m a mom." I could give other examples but you get the idea.
I am learning how to negotiate being a lawyer and a mother but decisions about career and other issues are a lot more nuanced than I think this article (or this study) would indicate.
I do think that it is a little ridiculous to compare taking a couple of years to raise a kid and work "part time" should be compared to taking time off to travel or raise beets. At what point will our industry recognize that there is value to be assigned to having well rounded happy lawyers working for you? At what point will we realize that working "part time" as a lawyer doesn't make you any less dedicated to your firm or your clients or less of a lawyer?
The thing is, she went from being all business to being somewhat business, and her salary and advancement should reflect that. And this goes whether she's a woman or a man who's suddenly shifted his focus from his job to 10 pounds of squirming flesh.
thanks, snakeman!
People Get Drunk And Safe Sex Is Out The Window
Hookers and johns, too. Even in China. There, was that hard to figure out? Well, we're about to spend $2.6 million to get Chinese prostitutes drunk, writes Edwin Mora for CNSNEWS, all in the name of science:
Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit....Li said minimal research has been conducted on the link between alcohol use and prostitution as it relates to HIV.
"Alcohol has been a part of the commerce of sex for many, many years. Unfortunately, both global-wise (and) in the United States, very few researchers are looking at the complex issue of the inter play between alcohol and the commerce of sex," he told CNSNews.com.
Here, allow me: Drink and maybe the skanky guy you are about to fuck will be blurry.
The grant is one of several "international initiatives" sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.Ralph Hingson, director of epidemiology and prevention research at NIAA, told CNSNews.com, "There are many Americans who travel to China each year and they should be made aware of the HIV problem."
Put out a State Department warning. It'll cost you probably $2000 in wages for somebody to write it up, a bunch of somebodies to sit around a table moving and removing the commas, and somebody else to post it on the State Department website and e-mail it to the media.
via reason's Katherine Mangu-Ward
Humor And Alzheimer's
My very good friend Deborah Levin is looking for your stories about your friends, relatives, or acquaintances with Alzheimer's:
I am looking for real life humorous stories relating to Alzheimer's. This is a dark, serious disease and I hope that my desire to receive stories that offer laughter is not misconstrued as offensive. My hope is to provide levity. The intent is not to make fun of anyone's situation but hopefully by laughing we will survive easier, talk more openly, and be better caretakers of ourselves and others.My mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's several years ago. My mother is not who she used to be, but once I began to see her sense of humor, which still exists, and share her stories - often back at her and often with others, I began to feel healthier. This ability to see the humor and the silliness has allowed me to be with my mother, rather than back off from fear and frustration. I have been a better daughter and have given my mother better care.
My mother's condition is not a secret nor should my mother be a secret. We know the horrors, I want to share the comical which will open doors of the unspoken. I treat my mother with dignity and honor, but I can still see utter madness and craziness of her behavior - which can be very funny.
Do You "Support Your Own" When Shopping?
By that, I mean, if you're, say, white, do you try to only patronize white-owned businesses, or would that seem...say, stupid and racist to you? One dry cleaner I patronize is Chinese-owned and operated, and the other is owned and operated by Latinos. Should I change to the dry cleaner on the other boulevard where the owner is a white guy? Or should I do what I'm doing, go where they're friendly, affordable, and do a good job on my clothes?
A bunch of black people are in a movement called the "Empowerment Experiment" to patronize black-owned businesses only. Errin Haines writes for the AP:
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only black-owned businesses. The "Empowerment Experiment" is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey."We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point ... but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis," Maggie Anderson said. "It's like, my people have been here 400 years and we don't even have a Walgreens to show for it."
Oh, please. A friend of mine is a black fashion designer who started with nothing and built her business herself, selling clothes out of the back of her station wagon after she couldn't afford the living expenses in New York City and had to turn down a scholarship to F.I.T. It isn't skin color that makes the difference, it's enterpreneurial spirit and a burning desire to make it; enough so that you're not afraid to fail and pick yourself up and start again when and if you do.
Okay, Guess I'll Have To Shoot The Video On My Actual Camera
Went to a screening of the silly "Angels and Demons" last night.
Most absurd thing in the movie:
That would be the way, in Rome, between 8 p.m. and midnight in the spring/summer, hugely touristic spots like Piazza Navona were deserted pretty much comparable to the crowd level at 3 a.m. in some Ace hardware store parking lot in suburban America.
Second most absurd thing in the movie:
Stiffo Hanks and Israeli hottie Ayelet Zurer are in a huge rush to stop a wave of death and destruction, yet speed wildly around Rome in large passenger cars instead of on motorinos. In real life, they'd still be stuck in traffic on their way to their locations.
Most absurd thing before the movie:
That's the way the studio made everybody line up so movie theater employees could confiscate cell phones, which they put in little numbered paper bags, giving attendees red tickets à la the State Fair. Some woman also searched my purse -- entirely missing the Canon camera that shoots video that I took into the movie with me.
My friend and I talked to a couple of employees afterward and they said the movie studio makes them search people. And I understand -- they're trying to prevent people from shooting it and selling it. But, come on, if you're going to have security, hire somebody from El Al or something so it isn't quite so pointless and stupid.
Mastercard Made You Do It?
There's all this talk of all the horrible abuse by credit card companies, and finally, here's a piece that lays the blame where it belongs: on the consumer...whoops, and then starts making excuses. Barbara Kiviat writes in Time:
Every penny of Americans' nearly $1 trillion in revolving debt started with someone -- some individual person -- whipping out a piece of plastic and making a decision to use it. We could consider that free will and just call it a day, but there's plenty of reason to believe the story isn't so simple. There are piles of evidence that people are bad decision makers when it comes to how they use credit cards. Even when presented with full and fair information, they often make decisions that are not in their own economic best interest -- a reality only partly taken into account by the new rules and pending legislation.... Consider the teaser rate. More than a third of consumers pick one credit card over another based on which issuer has the lowest introductory interest rate. And yet people often do so in a way that leaves them with higher finance charges over time. In one study, University of Maryland economists Haiyan Shui and Lawrence Ausubel watched people pick a card with a teaser rate of 4.9% for six months over a card with a teaser rate of 7.9% for 12 months. That would make sense if the people then paid off their balances within six months. But many didn't -- the average balance for the year was $2,500, with plenty of folks paying more in interest charges than they would have had they opted for the other card, considering the rates on each spiked to 16%.
It is easy to chalk that up to simple human carelessness. Certain economists, though, have another way of looking at that and similar findings. They see a systematic psychological breakdown -- as a species we're just really bad at understanding costs that come later on. Instead, we assign a disproportionate amount of importance to what's immediate and tangible. We lock eyes with that initial low rate and can't look away. (And, yes, credit-card companies get that.)
Oh, come on...yes, there seem to be common human irrationalities involved, and it takes a bit of thought to surmount them, but...well...do the math. If you're a lazyass, if you don't make yourself read the contract or figure out the finance charges (Mine: Zero, because I don't buy stuff I can't afford), you deserve to pay whatever they're gouging you for.
My favorite numbwits are those who wake up at 5 a.m. to rush to the stores for "black Friday" discounts -- to get 10 percent off on a product they're then going to pay 26 percent interest for on their credit cards...perhaps for an entire year or for years.
If you don't have money, make a card or some cookies. If that's not good enough for the recipient, well, you'll have exfoliated some unnecessary skin, won't you? Over 100 pounds of it, in most cases, unless some of your objectionable friends are "little people."
Why People Behave Badly
My brilliant friend Barb Oakley, author of Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
Sadly, because we're shooting the promo to sell my TV show on Friday, I lose a work day, so I have to write on Sunday. But, if you're not dead or in a coma, if I were you, I'd get my ass to Cal Tech, and early, to make sure you get a ticket to her lecture. Details below:
Why People Behave BadlyEvent Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Speaker: Dr. Barbara Oakley
Location: Baxter Lecture Hall
Tickets: First come first served at the door. Sorry, no advance ticket
sales for this lecture. Seating is limited. $8 Skeptics Society
members & Caltech/JPL Community; $10 General Public
Oh, and I always laugh at people who wake up at 3 a.m. for rock concert tickets. I won't laugh at you in the slightest if you're there with a lawn chair in the wee hours waiting for tickets to this one.
More of her California tour dates here. More about Barb here.
What Would Jesus Drink?
Gregg says he's seen this guy on the corner of Fairfax and Fountain.*
*(Just crossing the street, not walking on water or anything, in case you were wondering.)
Don't Fire, Don't Fire
Enough with the ridiculous, discriminatory and damaging policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." There's no reason gay soldiers should be treated any differently than any others. Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic who happens to be gay, speaks out against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and his discharge, on CNN.com. Here's an excerpt:
I have personally served for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.
...The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.
My subordinates know I'm gay. They don't care. They are professional.
Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.
After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I "negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard." I refuse to accept this statement as true.
As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force - we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.
When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.
Please do not wait to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please do not fire me.
Very Respectfully,
Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard
Life On The A La Carte Plan
That would be my choice, along the lines of the Spanish proverb, "Take what you need, but pay for it," meaning you take what you need and pay for it, and I'll take what I need and pay for it. We won't all have our money sucked into some big pot for this pet program and that.
That runs contrary to the spend-and-spend Democrats and the spend-and-spend Republicans. And no, the Republicans aren't the party of small government. They're just the party of somewhat smaller government than the nitwit Democrats, who think you can just tax the mean old rich people and we'll all soon be on a cruise ship to Utopia.
Bob Packwood talks some simple economic sense about this sort of thinking in an op-ed in the NYT:
Some people might assume that we could afford the maximum amount of government largess and still avoid pain for most taxpayers by simply collecting more taxes from the "rich." Not a chance. Let's assume, based on historical patterns and President Obama's suggested spending, that at some point, the spending of all governments in the United States, federal and local, could add up to 40 percent of G.D.P. Mr. Obama proposes to increase the tax rate on income over $250,000 to 39.6 percent. The billions of dollars a year raised by the higher rate won't begin to cover the trillion or so a year in increased government spending. Nor would current state and local taxes support their share of that spending. Therefore taxes would have to be raised on Americans making less than $250,000.One other option would be a national value-added tax on goods. But this would ultimately take its hardest toll on lower- and middle-income consumers.
Even if tax increases are limited to the so-called rich, Mr. Obama's plan, compounded by state and local taxes, could slow the overall economy. Maybe we have not reached our limit yet. Maybe we can have a tax rate of 50 percent to 60 percent on income above $250,000 and people will still work. But at some stage the law of diminishing returns sets in.
The choice to spend less than 40 percent of G.D.P. on government services is not as easy as it once was, because the federal government has already assumed so much responsibility for shouldering the costs of health care and retirement. Fifty years ago, spending on Social Security, pensions and health care was a relatively small fraction of the total federal budget. Medicare and Medicaid did not even exist until the 1960s. Today, taxpayers are footing the bill for far more government programs. But we simply cannot raise enough money in taxes from the rich to pay for the programs the president wants.
So we basically have two options: raise taxes on the middle class, or demand that federal, state and local governments spend less.
I'll take the latter, thanks. And less government, while you're at it.
Oh, and I'd just like to send a big FUCK YOU out to all the asshats in California who thought it made sense to vote for a high-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Meanwhile, our state is going out of business and what business there is here is fleeing to all the surrounding lower-tax states. Thanks so much, Arnold! I see Cathy Seipp was right; I should've voted for Tom McClintock.
Oh, and regarding the silly, silly notion that merely taxing the stuffing out of the rich will pay our way, here's this from Megan McArdle:
This weekend, I was on a panel where the other economics journalist and I spent a great deal of time belaboring the obvious: Obama's health care plans are very, very expensive, and they mean higher taxes for everyone, not just that elusive klatch of greedy fools who are not in the 95% of working families now allegedly slated for stable or lower taxes. Otherwise, how could Obama hope to pay for it?
The Other Holocaust Against The Jews
It's the Muslim one, the one Jews don't even talk about, and it seems to have started when Mohammed arrived in Medina and announced to all the Jews there that he was the prophet. This didn't go over well with the Jews. Bill Warner lays it out on Islam Watch:
There are two different Korans-an early one written in Mecca and a later one written in Medina. In Mecca, Mohammed claimed to get his Koran from Gabriel, a Jewish angel and portrayed himself in the line of Jewish prophets. Indeed, that was his proof of being a prophet; he was just like the Jews.When Mohammed arrived in Medina, which was half Jewish, the Jews informed him that he was not a prophet of theirs. The Koran changed its attitude, and Jews became the object of hatred. Indeed, as a measurement of that hatred, 10.6% of the Koran written in Medina is about Jew hatred. Using the concept of the German Holocaust as the reference, it should be noted that 6.8% of Mein Kampf is about Jew hatred. Conclusion: the Koran written in Medina is more filled with Jew hatred than Mein Kampf. Here is one of the more egregious verses:
Koran 2:65 We [Allah] said to them [the Jews], "You will be transformed into despised apes." So We used them as a warning to their people and to the following generations, as well as a lesson for the Allah-fearing.But the Koran is only 16% of the sacred texts of Islam. The Sunna of Mohammed is found in the Hadith (his traditions) and the Sira (his biography). In the Sira, 5.3% of the Medinan text relates to the destruction of the Jews-assassinations, executions, rapes, torture and exile. Then there are many other pages that are verbal violence against the Jews. If you add the verbal violence to the physical violence, the Medinan Sira is 8.6% Jew hatred. Mein Kampf is 6.8% Jew hatred. Conclusion: the Sira (Mohammed's biography) contains a greater proportion of Jew hatred than Mein Kampf.
When we come to the Hadith, we do not have such high percentages of text related to Jew hatred; but here are two examples:
Muslim Book 042, Number 7135 Mohammed: "A tribe of Jews disappeared. I do not know what became of them, but I think they mutated and became rats. Have you noticed that a rat won't drink camel's milk, but it will drink goat's milk?"Muslim Book 041, Number 6985: Mohammed: The last hour will not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Muslims would kill them, until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree. The stone or a tree would say: Muslim, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
What was the result of all of this hatred? Mohammed killed, enslaved, tortured, exiled, robbed and raped all of the Jews of Medina and then went a hundred miles away and attacked and destroyed the Jews of Khaybar. After he had taken their wealth, tortured the Jewish leader to death, and laid out the jihadic rules of rape for women, he made the Jews of Khaybar a new type of half-human-the dhimmi. The Jews of Khaybar became semi-slaves of Islam. They could keep their Jewish culture in the home and synagogue, but they had to pay a 50% tax and live under Islamic rule without civil rights. Finally, when Mohammed lay on his deathbed, he exiled all Jews and Christians from Arabia. There are Jews still in Germany today, but Arabia is Judenrein and has been for 1400 years.
And what do Jews, Jewish leaders and Jewish organizations say about the Arabian Holocaust? They deny it absolutely and categorically. They even deny that the subject of the Arabian Holocaust even exists.
Examine the case of the survival of Israel. Since so many liberal Jews deny the existence of the Arabian Holocaust and the Islamic Jew doctrine, they are incapable of answering the question: Who is the enemy of Israel? Jews cannot connect the dots from Mumbai to Israel and how Kashmir and Israel are the same struggle.
Mohammed was an evil fucker and sounds like he was probably mentally ill. When people talk about "moderate Muslims," if they aren't speaking out against this stuff, well, they're condoning it.
Let's Have A War On Moronic Policy, Already
Yale law prof Steven B. Duke has a terrific piece in the WSJ about raising billions in tax dollars and ending the vast swath of violence in Mexico by instituting a wiser drug policy -- one suggesting we've finally learned something from Prohibition:
What we can and should do is eliminate the black market for the drugs by regulating and taxing them as we do our two most harmful recreational drugs, tobacco and alcohol.Marijuana presents the strongest case for this approach. According to some estimates, marijuana comprises about 70% of the illegal product distributed by the Mexican cartels. Marijuana will grow anywhere. If the threat of criminal prosecution and forfeitures did not deter American marijuana farmers, America's entire supply of that drug would be home-grown. If we taxed the marijuana agribusiness at rates similar to that for tobacco and alcohol, we would raise about $10 billion in taxes per year and would save another $10 billion we now spend on law enforcement and imprisoning marijuana users and distributors.
Even with popular support, legalizing and regulating the distribution of marijuana in the U.S. would be neither easy nor quick. While imposing its prohibitionist will on the rest of the world for nearly a century, the U.S. has created a network of treaties and international agreements requiring drug prohibition. Those agreements would have to be revised. A sensible intermediate step would be to decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana and to exercise benign neglect of American marijuana growers. Doing both would puncture the market for imports from Mexico and elsewhere and would eliminate much of the profit that fuels the internecine warfare in Mexico.
After we reap the rewards from decriminalizing marijuana, we should move on to hard drugs. This will encounter strong resistance. Marijuana is a relatively safe drug. No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose nor has anyone gone on a violent rampage as a result of a marijuana high. Cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, on the other hand, can be highly addictive and harmful, both physically and psychologically. But prohibition makes those dangers worse, unleashing on vulnerable users chemicals of unknown content and potency, and deterring addicts from seeking help with their dependency. There is burgeoning recognition, in the U.S. and elsewhere, that the health benefits and the myriad social and economic advantages of substituting regulation of hard drugs for their prohibition deserves serious consideration.
A most impressive experiment has been underway in Portugal since 2001, when that country decriminalized the possession and personal use of all psychotropic drugs. According to a study just published by the Cato Institute, "judged by virtually every metric," the Portuguese decriminalization "has been a resounding success." Contrary to the prognostications of prohibitionists, the numbers of Portuguese drug users has not increased since decriminalization. Indeed, the percentage of the population who has ever used these drugs is lower in Portugal than virtually anywhere else in the European Union and is far below the percentage of users in the U.S.. One explanation for this startling fact is that decriminalization has both freed up funds for drug treatment and, by lifting the threat of criminal charges, encouraged drug abusers to seek that treatment.
We can try to deal with the Mexican murderers as we first dealt with Al Capone and his minions, or we can apply the lessons we learned from alcohol prohibition and finish dismantling the destructive prohibition experiment. We should begin by decriminalizing marijuana now.
And the one thing that was missing from this otherwise excellent piece? Commenter David Elmore brings it up over at the WSJ:
Steven Duke's column on the necessity of legalizing drugs is spot-on - outside of its glaring omission of the primary reason for legalizing drugs: human beings have a natural right as rational animals to ingest anything they wish.All of us who do or did drugs (as I did as a youth) know that you can acquire any drug any time, usually within minutes or hours of the desire. The only thing that ever changes is price, which, like all commodities, depends upon availability and demand. Each and every American knows somebody in his or her circle of friends who sells at least small amounts of drugs - whether that American may be cognizant of that fact or not.
But it is underground and it is lethal to many, as Mr. Duke says. Let's bring it above-ground to the light of day and stop burying police officers and others below ground in a futile attempt at regulating human behavior.I commend the WSJ for having the courage to bring this subject up in a major, public way. Now, let's start talking rationally.
You Don't Hear Jews Naming Their Little Girls LaKeisha
...Or their boys Malcolm X. (I am sometimes amused/puzzled by Jewish parents who name their kid something like Dakota Rubenstein.)
Ran an errand on Sunday and heard a black woman with corn rows call her child: "Hadassah! Hadassah!" Weird.
UPDATE: For the uninitiated, Hadassah is a Hebrew word for "myrtle," and also a big Jewish organization for women.
"A Sly, Violent, Funny And Superbly Written Story Of Friendship, Greed And Betrayal"
That's what the AP called Elmore's novel, Road Dogs
I wish I could pull quotes from the book, but I mowed through it when we were in Paris in December, and Gregg had to pass that copy on to somebody at Rivage, Elmore's French publisher.
Funny, too, to read it in Paris, since most of it takes place just down the block from me, in the Venice canals. It's a super-fun read. I loved it. Here's the rest of the final quote from the AP piece:
"Road Dogs" is vintage Leonard -- a sly, violent, funny and superbly written story of friendship, greed and betrayal. It's the writer's 43rd novel, Leonard still at the top of his game at the age of 83.
P.S. If you happen to know George Clooney, wouldja ask him to please reprise his role of Foley (from Out of Sight
Like A Bird Shitting On The Statue Of Liberty
Althouse blogs, "The Air Force 1 flight over NYC can't possibly have been made for the purpose of taking that photograph." She continues: "But look at the picture. Why would people going to all this trouble and expense to get a photograph that looked so awful?" 
via Insty
Smokin' Pot
My friend Annie took me to an opening the other night for Frank Bauer, a really nice guy who used to be in advertising in Milwaukee, but told me he got into tile art after he tiled his fireplace back in cold country.
Bauer forms, fires, glazes and refires every tile. Here are photos of how he works.
I really liked his stuff out on display, but there are pictures of pieces I like even better at his site, like the one of this pillow chair. Here's the link to various photos of his work. Some really gorgeous pieces in there.
I've always loved the look of tile and mosaic, and also have a thing for paintings made up of tiny squares of paint, like my old Noho, NYC neighbor Chuck Close's.
Thank A Mother Who Does It Right
My neighbor is a great mom, who's kind and loving and fair and works very hard to raise children who are good people. So, while I generally find kids loud, sticky, and annoying, her kids, who are very well-raised, about turn me into a puddle -- a lot. So, today being mother's day, I made her a little card, thanking her for doing it right, and tucked it in her door. With all the crappy mothers in the world, if you know one, even one who's not yours, who's doing a great job, you might point it out.
What's Wrong With This Entry?
I copied the excerpt below from a blog item over at Dissenting Justice -- and made a few edits to it before I posted it. See if you can guess what they are:
* George W. Bush and members of his administration embraced the use of rendition.* Bush invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.
* Bush argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.
* Even though it stopped using the phrase "enemy combatants," the Bush administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.
Did you guess?
It's that every reference above to George W. Bush or the Bush administration actually applies to Barack Obama and the Obama administration. For example, here's the real deal that Dissenting Justice posted about rendition (I cut off the second part altogether to make the little game work):
* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.
via Insty
What Women Need To Know About Sex With Men
I know a thing or two about the topic, yes, but I'm working on that section of the book I'm writing, and I thought I'd go right to the source.
Guys (and girls, too), feel free to weigh in on the stuff you wish women knew, would think of, would do (I know, I know "blow you"). The stuff other than that -- definitely got that covered. And then, also, I'm on top of the way some women don't realize how important sex is to men, and feel that not really feeling in the mood all the time will fly on any longterm basis. As I wrote in this column:
Relationships are filled with little tasks that don't exactly bring a person to screaming orgasm. A man, for example, doesn't wake up in the middle of the night with some primal longing to bring his girlfriend flowers, rehang her back door, or clean the trap in her sink. Like sex, these things can be expressions of love, but if a guy's going to lock himself in the bathroom, it's not going to be with "Bob Vila's Complete Guide to Remodeling Your Home."So, couldn't putting out when you aren't in the mood be seen as just another expression of love? Joan Sewell, author of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, told The Atlantic Monthly, "If you have sex when you don't desire it, physically desire it, you are going to feel used." Well, okay, perhaps. But, if a guy rotates a woman's tires when he doesn't desire it, physically desire it, does he feel used?
Actually, we all do plenty of things with our bodies that we don't really feel like; for instance, taking our bodies to work when we have a hangover instead of putting our bodies in front of some greasy hash browns, and then to bed. For women, however, sexual things are supposed to be out of the question. I think the subtext here is not doing things we really don't feel like if it GIVES A MAN PLEASURE. And no, I'm not advocating rape or anything remotely close to it. And, of course, if you find sex with your husband or boyfriend a horrible chore, you're in the wrong place. Otherwise, if you're with a man, and he's nice to you, and works hard to please you, would it kill you to throw him a quickie?
Ability To Pay, Not Lack Of Income, Should Be The Lending Standard
Excellent piece by Steven Malanga on City Journal, showing how we've been through this before, starting with Hoover -- the folly of lending to people who don't have the income to justify to a lender to lend to them.
He writes, in "Obsessive Housing Disorder":
Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn't lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) rocked the banking industry when it used the CRA to turn down an application by the Greater New York Savings Bank to open a branch on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The government contended that the bank didn't lend enough in Brooklyn, its home market....The next stop on the road to 2008 was a fateful campaign to lower lending criteria, which, the housing advocates argued, were racist and had to change. The campaign began in 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new "flexible credit and underwriting standards" for minority borrowers--for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income. The next year, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).
...As the volume of lending to low-income borrowers increased, the loans became big business. And slowly, the industry began pitching the loans with the same language that the government and activists had long used, and promoting the same debased lending standards. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell, according to Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas who unearthed the pitch. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was "a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment." Bunk, says Liebowitz: "The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it."
...Any concern that regulators should tighten standards as the loan volume expanded was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making "subprime" loans--loans to people with questionable credit, that is--Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans.
...What made it easier to dismiss such ominous failures was that some of the nation's most prestigious financial regulators and researchers, including the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, got behind the movement to loosen lending standards. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be "unintentionally biased" because they didn't take into account "the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers." Lenders should thus consider junking the industry's traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant's "lack of credit history" as a "negative factor." Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should "consider extenuating circumstances"--even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn't have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren't arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.
Read the whole thing over at CJ.
Stupid Legislator Tricks
Two possibilities here: Legislator Linda Sanchez is a complete idiot, and/or "Democrat" really is another word for "totalitarian." Sanchez is one of 14 legislators behind a bill to criminalize Internet speech -- once again, like in the case of the asinine and damaging CPSIA, "for the children." Here are the relevant excerpts from the law that may turn you into a felon for hurting somebody's feelings:
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...
["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.
It's yet another bit of "meaning well" gone bad because the legislators behind it aren't smart enough to think the bill through to its logical conclusion -- or, again, the converse, that they're trying to control every minute detail of every person's life. Constitutional scholar and UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh does their homework for them, giving examples of ways this could backfire:
4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe."5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn't threatening a company with possible massive losses "severe"? But again, who knows?)
6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he's hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn't threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is "severe."
The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law's supporters don't really want to cover all this speech.
A reader e-mailed me that she's "wondering if I'm a bad person for thinking someone was called ugly in junior high and cannot let it go."
I'm against any chill on free speech -- and we have laws on the books to deal with speech that is criminal, like fomenting violence against another person or using character and likeness of a personality without permission.
Sullum thinks those behind the bill are not censors, just crappy legislators.
News To Pat Robertson: Married Gay People Are Boring!
Same as married straight people. Married gay people with kids are even more boring. They are not running around WeHo in those leather pants with the butt circles cut out or checking out all the fresh pussy at The Labia Lounge. They are too busy driving their kids to ballet lessons and doctor appointments and trying to raise money to create a library in the charter school. Snore.
Pat thinks otherwise. Via Media Matters, "Pat Robertson suggests the ultimate conclusion of legal same-sex marriage is legal polygamy, bestiality, child molestation, pedophilia":
Long Way Home
December in Paris, where Gregg took me for our six-year anniversary.
Planning Any Criminal Activity This Weekend?
Say, the criminal sale of old, nearly worthless crap? If you're having a garage sale, bad news -- you're probably breaking the law. But, lucky you, the feds have, most helpfully, put out a booklet to let you know. (Wonder how much that cost us taxpayers.) Not that they're likely to send out goon squads to arrest garage sale proprietors across the country. But, as long as the economy really sucks, they thought it would be nice to put a wee chill on your ideas for making ends meet.
At Catholic Information, Ian blogs about the latest CPSIA (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act) idiocy:
Well, welcome to a federal government that the Founding Fathers would have risen up in arms against:This handbook will help sellers of used products identify types of potentially hazardous products that could harm children or others. CPSC's laws and regulations apply to anyone who sells or distributes consumer products. This includes thrift stores, consignment stores, charities, and individuals holding yard sales and flea markets.Maybe you didn't really care about the law before because it was only putting small retailers and work at home moms out of business. Hopefully you will care about it now that you can be slapped with a $100,000 fine for selling your kids' old books at a yard sale.
This is what happens when people think it really doesn't matter who's in office, and elect rectums instead of people with brains. Mr. Rarely Veto, George W. Bush, signed this thing, and Nitwit Pelosi bragged about how she, George Rush, and other Dimocrats pushed it through. Michigan Democrat John Dingell did call for amending the CPSIA, with that rare Congressional quality of common sense as his guide, but he was, of course, roundly ignored.
via reason and Walter Olson
Welfare For Old People!
I'm absolutely disgusted at the bribe being handed to seniors -- out of the pockets of those of us who are working our asses off to make ends meet. Tens of millions of oldsters already getting Social Security will get $250 from the rest of us -- for a cost of $13 billion, if you count all the people receiving porkulus checks (64 million Americans).
Please, please, somebody start a viable third party and get a viable candidate up for office who's a fiscal conservative. It's real simple, how this sort handout thing should and should not work, and let's use me for an example: If I don't have money in the bank, I don't spend money. Yes, it's as simple as that. No, I don't just jam up my credit cards with purchases -- that would be irresponsible, and incur huge sums in interest.
In case anyone hasn't heard, not only do we, as a country, not have money in the bank, we're ginormously in the hole...probably to the tune of people's great-great grandchildren picking up the cost of those $250 checkiepoos, plus buttloads of interest.
"She Has No Right To Be Speaking"
Those are the words of Muslims or Muslim supporters shouting down Nonie Darwish as she spoke about the dangers from Islam (which she knows firsthand as an apostate and the daughter of a Muslim was considered a martyr for Islam) and about the evils of Sharia law.
And frankly, the "religion of peacers" gave her the perfect setup for her message:
"No right to be speaking? In America. That is Sharia," she responds.
This is a really excellent piece below, with a few words on Darwish's personal story, plus the details on jihad culture:
Just watch and listen as these primitive fuckers celebrate murder in the name of Islam. And where are all the "moderate" Muslims? Are they silent out of fear of the murdering barbarians? Or...do they sympathize?
The Large-Breasted Oppressed
Feeding starving children? Preventing genocide in Darfur? Nope, women in England were too busy protesting a $3 surcharge at retailer Marks & Spencer on bras DD and larger.
And, great news! They won -- meaning they bullied the retailer into cutting their prices -- after 14,000 big boobs, uh, women with big boobs protested on Facebook.
The AP story by Gregory Katz says M&S "apologized for their mistake," which translates to something more like M&S "knew they couldn't win against the boobs."
As a woman who, um, wears larger cup size bras, I understand that bras for large-breasted women require more engineering. I wear the French brand Empreinte, which I've tried to buy on sale in when I've been in France.
Typically, I'll find a bra in a "normal" size with two hooks and less support, and a much more supportive and re-engineered version in larger sizes, with three or four hooks. I'm just glad these bras exist. I'd pay any amount of money for them, and do. And guess what: They last much longer than cheapo bras, as in years and years longer. I have Empreinte bras I bought over 10 years ago that I still wear.
(P.S. Those bras are nowhere near as expensive in France as they are at this link -- I pay under $80 for them, after euro conversion.) Best of all, they come in big boob sizes, but small back size, which is really hard to find, especially in increasingly obese America.
Back to the British boobs, I just love the name, too, of these ninnies' campaign:
"We are just overwhelmed," said Becky Mount, a co-founder of the Busts 4 Justice group that brought retailing icon M&S to its knees with a canny Internet and media-oriented campaign. "We've won, and we never thought it would happen so quickly."The group, which grew exponentially in the last few days, had vowed to challenge Rose and other M&S executives at the company's annual meeting this summer. Mount said this threat, and growing media support for their crusade, made the company's leaders realize they were losing the public relations battle.
"They didn't want a lot of big-breasted women storming their meeting," said Mount, 19. "I think they realized they were dealing with a much bigger force than they thought originally, and that we weren't going to go away."
She said the group's members would be happy to shop at M&S now that the surcharge has been dropped.
The new policy brings M&S into line with other major retailers in Britain, who decline to pass the higher cost of designing and manufacturing large-size bras on to the consumer.
Guess what -- they are passing them on to the consumer, or will, by making women with smaller boobs, who need less engineering, pay the price of the bullies' bras.
Becky, you're an ass.
And as for their argument that clothing for fatter people doesn't cost more, clothing for fatter people doesn't need reinforcing like bras for larger-breasted women do. Moreover, it would probably be confusing and difficult for retailers if all the different clothing sizes were different prices. Bras don't come in so, so many styles. To charge a little more for bras that cost more to make makes sense.
What a bunch of whiners. And they don't exactly do wonders for the notion that us girls with large hooters are dimmer than the girls with a mouthful or two.
If you don't want to pay the extra couple of pounds, let the twins swing loose in protest. In a few decades, your big worry will be the price of a trough of Vaseline, as your boobs will be rubbing the tops of your shoes.
thanks, Jay J. Hector!
Redefining Gun Control
He who has the gun is in control when about to be made the victim of a violent crime. From WSBTV in Atlanta, the story of a birthday party, attended by 10 college students, and interrupted by two masked gunmen who burst through a patio door:
"They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, 'Give me your wallets and cell phones,'" said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.(Student Charles) Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. "The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough," said Bailey.
That's when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.
The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.
"Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window," said Bailey.
For those who don't feel comfortable owning a gun, and even for those who do, my friend Sergeant Heather (of the LAPD) recommends pepper spray. She suggests velcroing one to your car door, carrying one in your purse (assuming you carry a purse), velcroing one to your nightstand, and having a couple more around your house. Here's the one I have: Crime Halter Keychain Pepper Spray with UV Identifying Dye
If I'm walking to my car or hear a noise when I'm in my house, I have it out, with the little switch in the ready-to-spray position.
A Horny Teen Isn't The Same As A Sex Offender
A guy was convicted of "lewd and lascivious conduct" over sexual activity with his own girlfriend when he was 18 and she was 15. Is this guy the same as some perv who hangs out drooling over children outside a school? Of course not. But, the law doesn't know the difference. And it should be changed to differentiate.
Chris Hagan has now been ordered to move himself and his wife and children from Barre, VT, because it's an "'exclusion zone' set up as part of a safety ordinance banned him from living in the apartment he rented," according to an AP story at Boston.com. The ACLU is suing on his behalf.
via ifeminists
"Your Car Warranty Is About To Expire"
And the assholes who run and work for that company are about to die of annoyance.
Consumerist, one of my favorite sites, posted this link from Reddit, with the phone number of the company or one of the companies behind these calls. I called at 3 a.m. to leave a message, but whaddya know, their mailbox was full!
One company, according to another Reddit user, is Auto-One, and the president is David Tabb. Others are listed below in the Reddit comments. A caveat: If you call an 800 number, they can see your phone number. I don't know if this would be the case at the company's 949 number. As a Reddit commenter writes:
I warn you guys, you can get into trouble for harassing them. CallerID blocks do NOT protect you. They will have a service called ANI and it's not blockable. Every 800 number has ANI, and if you get a PRI for your phone system, you can have it turned on by your carrier. Just an FYI.
Why resort to these tactics? Because these scumbag telephonic time robbers should have their business run into the ground for stealing my time almost daily. And because, the FTC, which brings only the tiniest fraction of cases against Do Not Call violators, is likely to do fuck all about them.
Muslims First, Citizens When It Suits Them
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes on The Week/UK of the problem with Muslim immigration in Europe:
Mr Ramadan, like many other Muslims, may have two or more citizenships. From all that he expresses both in person and on paper, it is clear that his loyalty, above all, is to Islam. I do not doubt that he would die for Islam, like most Muslims, and that's his prerogative. But what European countries have done is give citizenship to individuals who feel no obligation to share in their societies for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer and in the event of a catastrophe, sacrifice themselves.No debate is more explosive than the debate on the future of Islam in Europe
In this way, they evade one of the chief criteria of citizenship. Political allegiance to the constitution of your country is the minimum requirement. It is this state of affairs that makes Christopher Caldwell's book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration and the West (Allen Lane, £17.99), which opens with the sentence, "Western Europe became a multi-ethnic society in a fit of absence of mind," a chilling read....Take the debate on freedom of expression. In 1989 and afterwards, the provocations in the name of Islam were greeted with a confident, "No way! This is Europe, and you can say what you like, write what you like," and so on.
Two decades later, Europeans are not so sure about the values of freedom of expression. Most members of the media engage in self-censorship. Textbooks in schools and universities have been adapted in such a way as not to offend Muslim sentiment. And legislation to punish 'blasphemy', if not passed, has been considered in most countries - or old laws that were never used are being revived.
...Women's shelters have adapted their curriculum - instead of teaching the women who come to them how to become self-reliant, the shelters facilitate prayer rooms and employ mediators from the Islamic community. All this mediation serves only one purpose - that is, to return the woman to the circumstances of abuse she left.
Here is a system, which was a tool to emancipate, that has been completely transformed to serve the Muslim purpose of obedience. If the wife obeys, then the husband no longer needs to beat her. The matter is settled.
...If Europe falls, it's not because of Islam. It is because the Europeans of today - unlike their forbears in the Second World War - will not die to defend the values or the future of Europe. Even if they were asked to make the final sacrifice, many a post-modern lily-livered European would escape into an obscure mesh of conscientious objection. All that Islam has to do is walk into the vacuum.
Message To A Traitor
A video letter to Adam Gadahn:
Should Men Hit Back?
Here's an e-mail I got the other day. What would your answer be?
Hi Amy, I have a question about men, and hitting their wives - for any reason.ÂI have been married to a guy I have loved for the last 5 years. This is my first marriage, and I am 49. He's 58, self-made, good worker, smart, clever, well thought of by most everyone I know. Quite creative. He's been married before though, and that wife died about 10 years ago of cancer. He has always been very sweet, although, I do think when he was a kid it was tough for him growing up, and he wasn't treated very well - and kind of raised himself.Â
As much as I would like to understand him about this, it is really making me uncomfortable and completely distracting me from going forward. He has a nephew who is in his early 20's, who married a girl, who turns out to be a rage-aholic. She's 5' 2", and he's 6' 6". She sucker punched him, a few times, and hit him in places that are not the best on a man and he didn't defend himself by hitting her back. They agreed to get counseling, and then turns out, it happened again - so he divorced her, because he didn't think she would change.Â
The problem for me is that my husband's response was he should have hit her back, and that would have been the end of it. He has told me this, he is proudly promoting his view on this to his older sisters. To me, he has eventually, without remorse, said his first wife hit him, and he hit her back and knocked her down, and they both ended up agreeing that they wouldn't hit each other anymore. He shows no remorse, or embarrassment, or an explanation of how he was "too upset" or "not thinking clearly" and it would never have happened again, etc...whatever you might say to explain how something like that he should never have done.Â
I don't think women should hit men, believe me - and I don't see myself hitting him, but right now, I think of him so differently. I don't think a man who is bigger than a woman should swing back because they are "equals". I believe it is immoral for either to hit each other, but men if they are bigger, can do much more damage, very easily, and don't know their own strength at times, and should know better than to entice something by striking back - they should walk away, or hold on to the person who him them to get them to calm down - even that is better than swinging back. They have the ability to hold the other person, without having to swing at all.Â
I am not able to speak to him now without anger and fear of our relationship being completely ruined, and am starting to believe I have totally made the wrong choice because he is unwavering on this -- almost proud that this is his position. Am I way off base? I am sick over this.
UPDATE, May 6, 11:19 a.m. -- Now, I'll post my response to the woman:
If a child hit me, I wouldn't hit the child back because the child is smaller than I am. My neighbor, when her son hit her, grabbed him and held him so he couldn't move his arms and talked to him. That said, I can understand that men feel anything goes against them and are enraged that women can hit them and go unpunished.A simple accusation of violence against a man -- even if the woman was the actual perpetrator and he didn't lay a finger on her -- can result in jail time for him, financial loss, possible loss of custody of children, etc. This is a ploy in divorce cases -- women accusing a man of domestic abuse where none has taken place -- and completely decent men who have never hit a woman have been devastated by it, and devastated by how the system is stacked against them.
I wouldn't be with a man who would hit a woman -- and I wouldn't hit anyone. It's uncivilized behavior. Of course, I didn't ever need to ask my boyfriend if he'd hit a woman -- because I know his character and chose him because of it. He'd just leave if a woman hit him. At most, he'd raise his arm to defend himself. I confirmed this with him this morning -- just called him and asked to be sure.
You feel what you feel - and if that means the end of your marriage, that's the way it'll be, I guess. Sometimes people find things out about people that can't be taken back. You can't un-know this. And if you can't come to terms with it, you can't come to terms with it.
Empathy Isn't Justice
Thomas Sowell on the problem with Obama's professed method of Supreme Court justice selection:
That President Obama has made "empathy" with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with "empathy" for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.
We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.
Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words "rule of law." And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.
In Forbes, law professor Richard Epstein concurs:
Focus too much on the homeowner or the tenant in the individual case, and it is easy to overlook the lenders and landlords who may cut back on lending and renting to these groups if stripped of their legal protection. Ex ante accessibility to credit and housing is of vital importance to everyone, members of vulnerable groups included.In addition, we must never forget that the Supreme Court docket contains more than abortion and civil rights. Antitrust, securities regulation, bankruptcy, administrative law and civil procedure are all staples of the Supreme Court's diet, and it behooves any successful judicial nominee to have working knowledge of at least some of these vital areas before taking his or her seat.
Miss Breast Implant/Against Gay Marriage California
While I'm completely for gay marriage, and couldn't care less about beauty pageants, if pressed to give my opinion about the controversy, I'd say I don't think contestants should be drummed out of a crown thanks to answering honestly about beliefs they hold.
What I wonder, though, is whether those who are squawking about this happening to Carrie Prejean would squawk the same if it happened because she said she didn't believe in god. If so, then I'm all for them complaining about her loss of the crown. I'm guessing, however, that if she were an atheist coming out against the evidence-free belief in god, there'd be a rather deafening silence from many of those passionate defenders of her free speech -- if not a defense of Christian values in justifying her loss.
And by the way, like this commenter at NYTimes.com, I do find her beliefs, and those of most Christians, rather selective:
Ms. Prejean has been made famous for her controversial remarks against gay marriage, which she defends based on her Christian beliefs. But Christianity and the Bible are very clear on moral standards for modesty, which she obviously ignores by not only parading on national TV in a bikini, but also surgically enhancing her body's natural form. For her to use Biblical justification for her opinions while contradicting herself by even appearing in a pageant, much less having fake breasts, is hypocritical to say the least.
The Terms Of Child Neglect Have Changed
If any of us posting or commenting here were growing up today with the parental supervision we had when we actually did grow up, our parents would very likely be in jail for child neglect and we'd be in foster care.
David Bernstein over at Volokh links to guidelines published by the Arlington, Virginia Department of Human Services:
How Young Is Too Young To Be Home Alone?
* 8 years and under: Should not be left alone for any period of time. This includes leaving children unattended in cars, playgrounds, and yards.
* 9 to 10 years: Should not be left alone for more than 1 ½ hours and only during daylight and early evening hours.
* 11 to 12 years: May be left alone for up to 3 hours, but not late at night or in circumstances requiring adult supervision.
* 13 to 15 years: May be left unsupervised, but not overnight.
* 16 to 17 years: May be left unsupervised for up to two consecutive overnight periods.
Bernstein writes that at age 8, he not only played in his Queens backyard unattended, he remembers being "free to wander around" his neighborhood "unaccompanied by an adult so long as I came home before dark":
Somehow, I survived unscathed, as did each and every one of my peers.[By the way, I'm not arguing over whether it's good practice to keep your eight-year-old supervised, I am instead arguing that its absurd to claim that allowing an eight-year-old to play in the yard unsupervised does not meet even a "minimal acceptable standard" for supervising children.]
He follows up with the story of a woman who says she was charged for criminal misconduct for leaving her child asleep in the car for five minutes while she ran an errand. Her case will be dismissed if she completes a parenting class and 50 hours of community service.
How many of your parents would be charged? How did you all manage to turn out okay?
My old New York Daily News pal Lenore Skenazy wrote a book about all the parenting paranoia, Free-Range Kids: Giving Our Children the Freedom We Had Without Going Nuts with Worry
You may recall that a couple weeks ago a mom in small town Mississippi, Lori LeVar Pierce, let her 10-year-old walk a third of a mile to his soccer practice by himself. Or she would have let him, that is, except he got picked up by the police a few blocks in.The cop drove him the rest of the way, to ensure he wasn't abducted and murdered. Then the cop waited for Lori to show up (that's how responsible she is! She was meeting her son there 15 minutes later!) so he could tell her what a dangerous, crazy, maybe even criminal thing she had done, and how the police had received "hundreds" of calls to 911 about a boy dangerously on his own on that sunny afternoon.
I sure hope these people never watch "Lassie." They'd die of fright.
She explains there:
Do you ever... ..let your kid ride a bike to the library? Walk alone to school? Take a bus, solo? Or are you thinking about it? If so, you are raising a Free Range Kid! At Free Range, we believe in safe kids. We believe in helmets, car seats and safety belts. We do NOT believe that every time school age children go outside, they need a security detail. Most of us grew up Free Range and lived to tell the tale. Our kids deserve no less. This site dedicated to sane parenting. Share your stories, tell your tips and maybe one day I will try to collect them in a book. Meantime, let's try to help our kids embrace life! (And maybe even clear the table.)
She seems to be recovering nicely, by the way, after having been drawn and quartered by the American public for letting her then 9-year-old son Izzy take the subway by himself. As I posted back then:
Nancy McDermott writes for Spiked that Skenazy is considered by many to be guilty of child abuse because she gave her son, Izzy, 9, a $20 and a subway map, and trusted him to figure out that, from Bloomingdales, he should take the Lexington Avenue subway downtown and the 34th Street crosstown bus to get home."If he couldn't do that," Skenazy wrote in her column, "I trusted him to ask a stranger. And then I even trusted that stranger not to think, 'Gee, I was about to catch my train home, but now I think I'll abduct this adorable child instead.' Long story short: My son got home, ecstatic with independence."
And if you've read Barry Glassner's excellent book, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things
Their chances of being abducted and killed by a stranger are, according to the numbers (Finkelhor) crunched, 1 in 1.5 million. That's about 50 children a year--a statistic it makes my stomach sink to write--but far less than the 1,000 killed each year by relatives or acquaintances, a far more stomach-sinking stat.
The Truth May Set You Freer Than You'd Like
An high school history teacher speaks the truth and gets in trouble for "denigrating" a student, to borrow the word used by OC Register reporter Scott Martindale. A Federal idiot (uh, Judge), ruled that the teacher violated the First Amendment with his words about the silliness that is Creationism:
James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan - a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal "boundaries" as public school employees.
"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."
Um, speaking facts to a high school class? I'm sorry if you believe astrology, numerology, or the notion that man saddled up the dinosaurs and went for rides, but your beliefs are not fact-based, and somebody should inform you of that. And isn't informing students what the facts are and are not the job of a high school teacher?
In a December 2007 lawsuit, Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.
I didn't pass any bar exams to become The Advice Goddess, but that seems to go way too far. As for anybody who believes in Creationism, their real problem is surely a hostility to science and reason.
Thanks, Raddy!
Why Kids In L.A. Aren't Learning
Perhaps, in part, because principals in Los Angeles find it almost impossible to fire a teacher -- except maybe, maybe, for some wildly egregious repeat offense. Jason Song writes for the LA Times:
* Building a case for dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most egregious cases. The vast majority of firings stem from blatant misconduct, including sexual abuse, other immoral or illegal behavior, insubordination or repeated violation of rules such as showing up on time.* Although districts generally press ahead with only the strongest cases, even these get knocked down more than a third of the time by the specially convened review panels, which have the discretion to restore teachers' jobs even when grounds for dismissal are proved.
* Jettisoning a teacher solely because he or she can't teach is rare. In 80% of the dismissals that were upheld, classroom performance was not even a factor.
When teaching is at issue, years of effort -- and thousands of dollars -- sometimes go into rehabilitating the teacher as students suffer. Over the three years before he was fired, one struggling math teacher in Stockton was observed 13 times by school officials, failed three year-end evaluations, was offered a more desirable assignment and joined a mentoring program as most of his ninth-grade students flunked his courses.
As a case winds its way through the system, legal costs can soar into the six figures.
Meanwhile, said Kendra Wallace, principal of Daniel Webster Middle School on Los Angeles' Westside, an ineffective teacher can instruct 125 to 260 students a year -- up to 1,300 in the five years she says it often takes to remove a tenured employee.
..."It's really disheartening," said Dr. Mitchell Wong, president of Act4Education, a group of parents trying to improve school performance in West Los Angeles. "What message does it send to the students, to the community and to the teachers who are doing their job?"
Kathleen Collins, associate general counsel for L.A. Unified, explained it this way: "Kids don't have a union."
Man Falsely Accused Of Rape Pays Big
The two women who made up the sexual assault charges against him get off scott-free. Brian Leckle, the falsely accused, is a therapist and crisis counselor who's spent his working life trying to help people, Mark Bonokowski writes for the Toronto Sun:
Two troubled Bancroft-area women -- one purportedly a drug-troubled victim of domestic abuse; the younger co-accuser a "friend" with issues of her own -- put their focus on Brian Leckie, get him charged with two counts of sexual assault and then, before the ink is figuratively dry on his criminal indictment, they launch a civil-action suit to take a run at his money.Except that it was based on fiction.
In a Bancroft provincial court the other week, Judge Stephen Hunter acquitted Brian Leckie on all charges, and admonished his accusers for having "no credible" legs on which to stand -- the court's transcripts leaving no doubt. But the damage had already been done.
Both the Bancroft Times and the local Belleville Intelligencer wrote of the charges being laid, but little if anything of his charges being dismissed.
There are, after all, no press releases on acquittals.
...Brian Leckie chokes up twice, once when telling how he was called into the Bancroft OPP detachment, thinking it was to discuss a local domestic abuse investigation, and then finding himself charged with sexual assault.
The second time is recounting the costs -- the tarnishing of his good name, and the loss of virtually every dime he had to defend himself in court.
His lawyer fees, in fact, took all of the $115,000 he had socked away in RRSPs.
"No matter how bogus the charges, you need a competent lawyer to defend you," he says.
"If I did not have those RRSPs, I would likely be in jail today," he says.
"As a result, I am now bankrupt -- with an outstanding legal bill of $26,000 for those two days in court, including $6,000 for an expert witness.
"I was suspended from work for six months at Quinte Health Care because of this," he says. "I wonder how many innocent people are in jail today because they do not have the funds to hire a competent lawyer?
..."At one point, I honestly thought I was going to jump out the window," he says. "Colleagues gave me those disapproving downward looks at if they believed the allegations against me must have been true.
"Only the ER nurses seemed to give me the benefit of the doubt, because they've seen it. They've seen the lies and the accusations that come through emergency rooms.
"They see it all the time."
Today Brian Leckie is back on the job at Quinte Health Care, but never again will he treat female trauma victims.
"All it takes is one false allegation, and it's all but over," he says. "I sit here as proof of that."
As for the two women who falsely accused him, Bonokoski writes that "their names continue to be protected by a publication ban."
If I had it my way, false accusations of rape would bring with them the same jail time the falsely accused would have served, had that person been convicted.
And people are sure to suggest that Leckle sue these women, but first, is it likely that extortionist lowlifes like these have any money? And for an apparently very decent guy like this, is there really any way he can get back what he lost? Money is very important to me, but also, my feeling is, if you're not given to extravagance, once you have a reasonable amount to live on and retire on, it becomes secondary to a great many other things.
Make Your Mom Laugh
If I were your mother, this would be just the thing to get me for Mother's Day: The Complete Far Side 1980-1994 (2 vol set)
Of course, I'm not your mother (when asked whether I have any children, I like to answer, "None that I know of.")
Also, I already have this set, and give it to friends as a wedding present (marital laughter insurance, providing they have a slightly sick sense of humor, like me).
Dutch Teat
Life in the socialist Netherlands, by American author Russell Shorto, who wrote for New York Times Magazine about his observations during his 18 months in the welfare state:
For the first few months I was haunted by a number: 52. It reverberated in my head; I felt myself a prisoner trying to escape its bars. For it represents the rate at which the income I earn, as a writer and as the director of an institute, is to be taxed. To be plain: more than half of my modest haul, I learned on arrival, was to be swallowed by the Dutch welfare state. Nothing in my time here has made me feel so much like an American as my reaction to this number. I am politically left of center in most ways, but from the time 52 entered my brain, I felt a chorus of voices rise up within my soul, none of which I knew I had internalized, each a ghostly simulacrum of a right-wing, supply-side icon: Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Rush Limbaugh. The grim words this chorus chanted in defense of my hard-earned income I recognized as copied from Charlton Heston's N.R.A. rallying cry about prying his gun from his cold, dead hands.And yet as the months rolled along, I found the defiant anger softening by intervals, thanks to a succession of little events and awarenesses. One came not long ago. Logging into my bank account, I noted with fleeting but pleasant confusion the arrival of two mysterious payments of 316 euros (about $410) each. The remarks line said "accommodation schoolbooks." My confusion was not total. On looking at the payor -- the Sociale Verzekeringsbank, or Social Insurance Bank -- I nodded with sage if partial understanding. Our paths had crossed several times before. I have two daughters, you see. Every quarter, the SVB quietly drops $665 into my account with the one-word explanation kinderbijslag, or child benefit. As the SVB's Web site cheerily informed me when I went there in bewilderment after the first deposit: "Babies are expensive. Nappies, clothes, the pram . . . all these things cost money. The Dutch government provides for child benefit to help you with the costs of bringing up your child." Any parents living in the country receive quarterly payments until their children turn 18. And thanks to a recently passed law, the state now gives parents a hand in paying for school materials.
Payments arrive from other sources too. Friends who have small children report that the government can reimburse as much as 70 percent of the cost of day care, which totals around $14,000 per child per year. In late May of last year an unexpected $4,265 arrived in my account: vakantiegeld. Vacation money. This money materializes in the bank accounts of virtually everyone in the country just before the summer holidays; you get from your employer an amount totaling 8 percent of your annual salary, which is meant to cover plane tickets, surfing lessons, tapas: vacations. And we aren't talking about a mere "paid vacation" -- this is on top of the salary you continue to receive during the weeks you're off skydiving or snorkeling. And by law every employer is required to give a minimum of four weeks' vacation. For that matter, even if you are unemployed you still receive a base amount of vakantiegeld from the government, the reasoning being that if you can't go on vacation, you'll get depressed and despondent and you'll never get a job.
My concept of how things should work is pretty simple: You pay for your life and what you choose to incorporate into it, and I'll pay for mine.
Read on within the piece for health care, Dutch-style.
Thanks, Deirdre!
Supreme Court Outlaws The Flying Fuck
Adam Freedman writes for The New York Times that the Supreme Court nannies upheld the FCC's crackdown on salty language on the airwaves:
The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, was a test of the commission's zero-tolerance policy toward isolated curses, or "fleeting expletives," as the F.C.C. calls them. The commission put in place the so-called Bono Rule, named for the U2 singer (and contributing columnist for this page) who used an expletive during an NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards in 2003. That same year, Fox Television broadcast a routine by Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie in which both the vulgarities considered by the court were used.In response to these incidents, in which children of tender years were doubtless exposed to salty language, the F.C.C. decided that prime-time TV must be sodium-free, as it were. Departing from a 30-year policy of going after only repetitive usage of swear words, the Bono Rule gave the F.C.C. the power to punish a single utterance of a vulgarity.
In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, struck down the Bono Rule, holding that it had no rational basis. But the Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the majority last week, Justice Antonin Scalia stated that it was "entirely rational" for the F.C.C. to conclude, as it did, that one particular curse "invariably invokes a coarse sexual image."
Does it? The evidence is mixed. Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary and the author of a book on swearing, described the F.C.C.'s argument as "rubbish." Although the word in question originally referred to a sexual act, Mr. Sheidlower argued, it has now taken on an independent "emotional" sense. The nonsexual use of the word can be seen in countless contemporary examples, as when Vice President Dick Cheney used it in 2004 to recommend that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that is, strictly speaking, anatomically impossible.
...At oral argument, Fox's lawyer urged a descriptivist approach, arguing that the common slang term for sexual intercourse is no longer indecent because Americans "are significantly more tolerant" of the word than they were when the high court first upheld the F.C.C.'s multiple-expletive rule in a 1978 case involving the comedian George Carlin's "filthy words" monologue (F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation). After all, we live in an age, for better or worse, when children are exposed to profanity on cable and satellite TV and the Internet. Justice Scalia, however, insisted that the proliferation of swear words made the prescriptivist case all the more urgent: parents should be able to consider broadcast TV a "relatively safe haven" for children.
Oh, please. My neighbors find that there's a good deal that's objectionable on broadcast TV, and therefore only allow their children to watch videos the mother carefully selects.
If you can't raise your children without Supreme Court intervention, kindly double up on the birth control.
Jesse Sheidlower's book on swearing is The F-Word
Hot Tip For Mother's Day
Cuisinart TOB-195 Convection Toaster Oven, Stainless Steel
You've all been really great about patronizing my Amy's Mall links when you need stuff on Amazon. The kickbacks I get from Amazon are helping me bridge the downturn in newspapers. Got $162 in April, the highest ever. It's much appreciated.
In the meantime, I've been working my ass off on what will most likely be my next book, barely leaving the house. Almost have the first chapter done. I think it's the best thing I've ever written. Hope I'm right!
Gregg Finds Charles Sheeler On Top Of The Museum
Charles Sheeler is an American painter we're both fond of, who found beauty in cities and industry. I noticed the resemblance as I was going through photos on my computer, some of which were taken by Gregg. Gregg shot this one on the roof of Paris' Centre Georges Pompidou.
Here are a few words on Sheeler. And here are some of his images.
What Color Is Your Legal Ability?
I was disgusted by talk I heard on CNN and elsewhere by people who say President Obama should appoint a "person of color" or a woman to the Supreme Court. Shockingly, I think he should appoint the best legal mind for the job, and look for that person in a totally color-blind and vagina-blind way. Charlie Savage writes for The New York Times of past presidential pandering:
When President Ronald Reagan decided to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court in 1981, he had to turn to Sandra Day O'Connor, an obscure state judge.When President Bill Clinton decided to add a second woman to the court, he confronted a world in which women were just beginning to climb the ranks of big law firms and ranking female judges, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were still scarce.
She's Rich, Okay?
There's a brouhaha about some pricey Lanvin sneakers the first lady wore, reminding me of the time people went after her for a $100-plus bill for lobster and champagne in a hotel, and the way they went after McCain for having a whole bunch of houses.
I believe the lady made, like, $300,000 a year, and her husband isn't doing too shabbily, either. What I think about those shoes (assuming she paid for them, and paid full price), is how great that she earns enough to be able to be that extravagant.
The only real sin here in my book? The shoes are seriously ugly.
French first lady Carla Bruni wears flats all the time (a French friend told me she's four inches taller than Monsieur President, who, rumor has it, wears stacked heels), but I can't imagine her ever, ever wearing those ugly, unfeminine sneakers.
Drat! White Kids Tested Better, Too
Sam Dillon writes for The New York Times about a disappointing state of affairs for some, that black and Hispanic kids tested better in reading and math proficiency, but white kids also upped their scores:
Between 2004 and last year, scores for young minority students increased, but so did those of white students, leaving the achievement gap stubbornly wide, despite President George W. Bush's frequent assertions that the No Child law was having a dramatic effect....The 2008 score gap between black and white 17-year-olds, 29 points in reading and 26 points in math, could be envisioned as the rough equivalent of between two and three school years' worth of learning, said Peggy Carr, an associate commissioner for assessment at the Department of Education.
...Despite gains that both whites and minorities did make, the overall scores of the United States' 17-year-old students, averaged across all groups, were the same as those of teenagers who took the test in the early 1970s. This was largely due to a shift in demographics; there are now far more lower-scoring minorities in relation to whites. In 1971, the proportion of white 17-year-olds who took the reading test was 87 percent, while minorities were 12 percent. Last year, whites had declined to 59 percent while minorities had increased to 40 percent.
The scores of 9- and 13-year-old students, however, were up modestly in reading, and were considerably higher in math, since 2004, the last time the test was administered. And they were quite a bit higher than those of students of the same age a generation back. Still, the progress of younger students tapered off as they got older.
Some experts said the results proved that the No Child law had failed to make serious headway in lifting academic achievement. "We're lifting the basic skills of young kids," said Bruce Fuller, an education professor at the University of California, Berkeley, "but this policy is not lifting 21st-century skills for the new economy."
Which is what the real worry should be.
Teacher Forces Kids To Snort Smack
Well, not exactly. In fact, there was no heroin involved. There were no children involved. And there was no drug-taking involved.
Art teacher Melinda Herrick's car was searched (the drug paranoids in Houston had drug dogs sniffing around the parking lot) and...two Xanax were found!
Wooo! Somebody might get really, really relaxed and...fall asleep in some tempera.
From KHOU:
The district said Herrick, 59, was unable to produce the proper documentation for the pills and was taken into custody.She was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone.
Her bond was set at $2,000, and her car was towed away from the school.
Yes, apparently, the school has one of those asinine "just say no to reasoning" policies, and prohibits drugs of any kind on campus.
Here's an excerpt from the UPI story of what happened:
Former Teacher of the Year honoree Melinda Herrick was suspended after police found two Xanax pills in her car while it was parked on the campus of Roberts Elementary School, the Houston Chronicle reported Wednesday.Assistant District Attorney Joe Vinas of Harris County says he dismissed the charges after deciding he could not prove the case against Herrick beyond a reasonable doubt.
Attorney Kent Schaffer said he provided evidence Herrick did not know the anti-anxiety drug was in her car.
Schaffer also said his client passed a polygraph test, a urine test and a hair follicle test showing she did not use drugs.
Also, her car had been in a repair shop for a month, and her daughter had driven it.
But, let's say these were hers -- what of it? I know, prescription medicine is supposed to go to the person it's prescribed for. But, when I've been in France, a friend has sometimes given me a couple of her Ambien (although I've found I prefer Benadryl now as my jet-lag recovery sleeping pill). I'm an adult, I'm in good health, and I've taken Ambien before, but it's not one of Kaiser's list of generics. I'm not selling Ambien to schoolchildren; I just wanted to go to sleep and wake up at 9 a.m. instead of 3 a.m. Paris time.
Regarding Herrick, the drug charges have been dismissed for lack of evidence. Too bad there's no lack of assholes in the Houston school district, coming up with policies like this one.
Hey, parents -- since more and more schools are instituting policies like this, be prepared for your 14-year-old to be cuffed and thrown in the slammer next time she pops a Midol.
The End Of Civilization
It's coming, thanks to the Muslim birth rate. If the stats in this video are correct, Europe will be over within a few decades -- transformed into Saudi Arabia II with snow and rain on their stonings of homosexuals and all their other barbarism.
The guy at the end of the video calls for people to spread the (Christian) gospel. I suggest people use their ability to reason instead, and spread the merits of that around.
Western women aren't likely to put out the litters of children Muslims do; so, unless we can somehow persuade a people, who are reportedly 80 percent illiterate, and whose religion is anti-science and pro-murder in the name of Allah, to discover reason...we're pretty much fucked.
Here's some of what we have to look forward to once Sharia law is in place:
One Against Four
Four Christians, one Hitchens, guess who wins?
A preview of what you're in for, from YouTube commenter strikes90:
Five ostensibly intelligent people. One man who is willing to discuss this topic on the basis of fact, evidence, probability, logic and intellectual honesty. And four men who clearly seem incapable of it.
Thanks, Crid.
A Child Support Story
Tony Fantetti posted his story in the comments on the post about the realities of some of the guys who get dubbed "deadbeat dads." I'm reposting it here:
I was fired from my last job after the "Fugitive Warrant Unit" went to my former employer's place of business to arrest me on a Civil Contempt Warrant.I was found guilty of contempt in absentia for "refusing" to pay the court cost (as ordered) associated with my divorce, and sentenced to 60 days incarceration. Debtor's prison I suppose.
I couldn't pay court costs because I was indigent. I was indigent because my income was regularly seized for "child support."
I challenge anyone reading this to slice 70% of their net monthly income out of their monthly budget and to simultaneously continue to support their family.
I saw a recent (published) study that found only between 1/3 and 1/5 of a father's "child support payment" is actually spent on the children. The rest supports the custodial mother's lifestyle.
I couldn't pay my utility bills, my mortgages (my three homes were foreclosed), car payment, went bankrupt and lost my entire (nearly six-figure) life's savings.
I felt less than worthless when during a brutally cold Midwest winter day my daughter would look me square in the eyes and through the fog of her breath and while wearing a coat hat and gloves inside our "home" innocently ask, "why is it always cold over here daddy?"
Back then, I was fortunate enough to have my daughter exactly 50% of the time. Sadly, most of my parenting time was revoked after I moved out of state to secure a job one year post-termination.
I wanted to have my daughter's step mom (my wife)exercise my weekday parenting time so I could "visit" my daughter via webcam over the internet and continue doing her homework with her.
The court wouldn't allow just a "step-mom" whose a "nobody" to exercise my parenting time to establish interstate "visitation" over the internet.My daughter has fallen from her advanced level standing in school since then.
I was essentially punished for "willfully" moving away from my eight year old daughter. The three of us cried immensely.
Either I moved out of state to secure a job and continue paying my financially devastating "child support" obligation, or I face a felony "deadbeat" indictment for "refusing" to pay child support following the cessation of my unemployment compensation.
After "the system" forced me into poverty then caused me to be fired from my job (for the first time in my life) over a mere $663 in court costs, I was awarded unemployment benefits.
After my motion to reduce my child support was denied to account for my new and significantly lower monthly income of $1688 in unemployment compensation. The Hamilton County "Child Support" Enforcement Agency raised my order to over $1000/mo. Under Ohio law, they can seize up to 65% of a father's net monthly income for "child support."
I was left with a meager $848 a month to support a family of five (my two step sons included) while gasoline was over $4.00 per gallon.
Thankfully, we lived on a busy street and could hold weekly yard sales that we jokingly called "garbage sales" given we "garbage-picked" three to five times weekly to earn money for food and to keep the utilities on.
Today I drive over 1100 miles bi-weekly (assuming my vehicle is road worthy) to see my daughter for sometimes only 28 hours during my visitation.
I've lost much of the "visitation time" I was awarded due to travel time. That can be over 20 hours round trip, depending on traffic.
The court refused to allow my wife to pick my step daughter up in place of me on Friday nights, so that day was taken away.
I'm allowed to pick my daughter up every other Saturday morning. I must return her early Sunday morning to make the return trip (up to ten hours) home.
Sadly, I can no longer sustain my present "visitation schedule." I can't afford it as my child support has been raised yet again to over $1200 per month to satisfy an arrears that never existed.
After they seized nearly $4,000 in my present wife's income tax rebates and refunds to satisfy the non-existent aforementioned $2,700 arrears, it was erased.
However, they continue taking an additional $200 per month of my net pay and will do so until my outstanding arrears of $0 is paid in full.
That will continue until I can pay an attorney to fight the insanity now that I'm a "long distance deadbeat."
Admittedly, I still feel guilty for leaving the state to secure employment and feel I've abandoned my daughter.
At times, I must look away from her smiling face in that school picture of her hanging in my cubicle at work.Otherwise, the guilt associated with abandoning her would overwhelm me and and cause me to cry uncontrollably at work. Thank God I was raised to suppress my emotions and 'suck it up."
However, the alternative to me moving ten hours away from her,was an impending felony conviction as a "deadbeat dad" and most likely, a one year prison sentence for my first offense.
Next, I (and like many Ohio fathers) probably would have been re-indicted during my incarceration on a more serious felony charge carrying a 2-5 year prison sentence for "refusing" to pay my child support during my incarceration and while earning maybe .20 cents an hour in prison wages.
This is because the State of Ohio considers child support paying fathers who are incarcerated to be voluntarily under-employed and "refusing" to pay their child support.
I hope you know how much words fail to express my gratitude for your efforts on behalf of fathers Amy. Thanks again.
Tony
