Month: January 2011

An Irish Sports Writer, Ctd

A reader writes:

This post is an example of a sort of self-gratifying internal epistemic closure that you maintain with respect to an aspect of your childhood that you cannot move beyond. There are still large segments of the Roman Catholic population in this country who venerate the Pope, obey the Bishop and agree completely with Bill Donohue about LGBT people and their concerns.

Last year, just north of Boston, the state legislature passed and the governor signed a bill instituting marriage equality in the State of Maine. The measure was subjected to a repeal referendum and the Roman Catholic Church, inside the state and across the nation, mounted a fervent campaign against marriage equality. Special collections were taken, statements read from the pulpit and sermons preached on multiple Sundays. Large amounts of money flowed into the anti-equality coffers from Catholic churches and organizations across the country. If we ever learn who funded NOM's contributions, we are likely to find even more RCC money.

A review of the voting demographics indicates that the RCC campaign had a decisive effect on the outcome – substantially greater than the purported impact of the black/protestant vote on Prop 8 in California. Maine has a large and still somewhat insular French-Canadian, Roman Catholic population. The voter turnout in both rural areas and urban neighborhoods with large FC/RC populations substantially exceeded predictions, and overwhelmingly supported repeal of marriage equality. This turned out to be the wild card that the pro-equality groups, who mounted a campaign that was commendable in many respects, did not even realize was in the deck. And it trumped them.

Yes, this is true. And it can count in close votes. But again: we're talking about a narrow vote to deny civil marriage to gay couples, something unimaginable only a decade ago. If Catholics had not shifted dramatically, the issue would not have come up in the first place. Another writes:

I am glad you said what I have always thought. I come from a Northeast Irish Catholic family where my Aunt, my first cousin and a second cousin who is a former priest have come-out in the last ten years and I was overwhelmingly proud of how accepting and understanding my family was.

Although I do not have anything remotely statistical to back this up, I think the reason for this is the same as it always is: experience (exposure is the better word, but I hate the connotation). The uncle who still lives with mom (who often spent some time in the seminary) has been a part of the typical Irish Catholic family as the third generation cop and the tough old grandma. We all knew what was up.

The Robot Economy

Karl Smith imagines it. Nick Rowe plays along:

Assume robots are the same as humans. Robots can do all the work that humans can do. Robots need the same amount of energy/food to stay functioning as humans do, but robots themselves can produce that energy/food just like humans can. Robots will need maintenance and training as humans do, but robots themselves can produce that maintenance and training just like humans can. Robots can produce other robots, just as humans can produce other humans.

The only difference between robots and humans is that robots are owned by humans. Robots are just like human slaves. Robots will earn the same wages as humans, but those wages, minus the costs of the robots' subsistence, will go to the robots' owners. Just like slaves.

So Close, So Far

Phillip S. Smith reviews our latest print-on-demand book:

What is most striking about The Cannabis Closet is how deep in it most of the contributors are. Yes, they write anonymously about their experiences, but many of Cannabisthem  continue to hide their use from friends, families, and employers. They are indeed still in the closet. While The Cannabis Closet allows readers to see just how achingly normal pot smoking is in this country, it also makes painfully clear how hidden it still remains.

And as a drug reform activist, that makes me impatient.

The Cannabis Closet's contributors took the time to share their experiences and make the book possible. But have they taken other actions to change the status quo — political actions like lobbying legislators or donating to groups that are working to change the laws? None mentioned doing so, though all acknowledge prohibition's absurdity. Perhaps they have and we just don't know; that isn't what they were asked about. What we do know is that extremely few, proportionally, of the millions inhabiting the world's larger cannabis closet, do more than enjoy their pot and bemoan its prohibition.

Reader reviews here. You can still buy the book at Blurb.com for only $5.95 (and be sure to use the promo-code DISH for $3 off shipping).

The Missing, Ctd

A reader writes:

What unadulterated crap this is.  I know plenty of Koreans (and Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.) who were born right here in the US of A.  They grew up as I did, played the same video games, ate mostly the same food, celebrated (mostly) the same holidays and attended the same schools.  Many don't know enough of their "native" language to order fluently in an "ethnic" restaurant.  The idea that one's "race" must be accompanied by some stereotypical cultural heritage is absurd.  And, finally, if someone isn't up to introducing a youngster to kimchee and how to use chopsticks, parenting in general is probably waaaaay beyond their abilities.

Another makes the same basic point but draws from personal experience:

This idea of race being the important factor in one's cultural heritage is pretty sad. I understand the need for parents to defend the choice of adopting a child that resembles them, but the way your reader has done so is simply wrong-headed.

Perhaps he doesn't completely understand the concept of cultural heritage, but it has much less to do with the color of one's skin than their upbringing.  Many Asian-Americans in the US have few cultural ties to their ancestors' culture.  Are they failing their children by not teaching them about a culture they may no longer have much attachment to?  At the same time, immigrants for many years in the US chose to disregard their cultural heritage in an attempt to assimilate (my Swedish great-great-grandparents were actually scolded and punished for speaking Swedish outside the home).

Being part Brazilian, if I had ever been put up for adoption, that couple would probably still have adopted me, as I am entirely white.  But wouldn't they be depriving me of my cultural heritage?  On the other hand, are they saying that black children have a cultural heritage that is simply too foreign, regardless of the fact that these children are just as American as white ones?  The implications of what they are saying are pretty astonishing.

I guess the main reason this bothers me is that my fiancee has two adopted sisters originally from China and a brother from South Korea.  They grew up in a somewhat rural, almost entirely white part of the country.  They're as American as her sister or any of their college friends, and any kimchee-related incidents can probably be explained by their friends' own cultural insecurities.  They've had issues in the past about their adoption, just like almost any adopted child has, including my white friend adopted from Chile.

Their parents didn't deprive them of anything, except for a tough life in orphanages.

Another:

My wife and I adopted a 6-year-old girl from Russia.  With regards to the couple's quote about parents who "haven't done due diligence as a parent to expose and help integrate your child with their cultural heritage", I must disagree.  They beat her to obey.  Starved her to make her comply.  Locked her in a dark basement to fend off rats whenever she acted up.  It took us years to find this out.  Some stories would come it when she would say "That oil smells like the dark place" or "I don't like people's hands near my face."  If she had the chance now, she would line them up and shoot them all in the head.

They almost didn't let us adopt her, trying to foist off "more bidable" children that we knew nothing about.  She was ours, not theirs.   We are so very proud of her, and love her as our own.  She is Alaskan, not Russian.  She wants nothing to do with them.  I think any parents who simply raise their children with love and support can overcome any racial or cultural hurdles without having to bend over backwards to 'make' them into something else.  These are kids, they need a family, enough said.

And from the other side:

Just over 35 years ago, my twin sister and I were born and orphaned as infants in Cambodia, just months before the Khmer Rouge took control of the country and massacred 2 million people. My white Canadian family, who already had four biological children, decided to adopt internationally after hearing about the many orphans in Southeast Asia. They rescued us from certain death and gave my sister and me a loving family and opportunity for a future. Despite our different skin tones and ethnic features, my parents are my parents, and our familial ties are as strong as any other family.

My blended family has not been a challenge or a barrier to our personal growth, we don't suffer psychologically from not being around other Cambodians and we certainly do not think our white parents made a mistake by adopting "trans-racially". Our identity is not based on our "race" or what we look like physically but by the people who loved us and raised us. We grew up to be well-rounded, healthy, well-adjusted adults and we will always be grateful to my parents for what they did for us.

As for connecting us with our Cambodian heritage, I think my parents struck the right note – they gently exposed us to Cambodia's sad history but they left it up to us to explore our roots when we were ready (which for me was when I turned 25 and culminated in a trip back to Cambodia in 2007). It has been a rewarding and fulfilling journey!

When it comes to trans-racial adoption, I'm sure the personal stories of the adoptees will vary; some will have thrived, others may struggle. We took exception to your reader's many assertions about what is right for adopted children from different cultures; it is not as cut and dry as your reader suggests. From my own personal experience, I will certainly be looking at international adoption just as my parents did for us, and I hope that others will be encouraged to explore this for their own families.

Will On Palin, Ctd

A reader writes:

You responded:

But my criterion for endorsement is a simple one: did he back the GOP ticket? Yes, he did. When that definitionally means a chance of a Palin presidency, I don’t think his positioning then or now gets him in the clear. To my mind, anyone who endorsed a national ticket with Palin on it endorsed Palin.

This continues to be unfair to Will on a number of levels:

– It discounts the fact that once McCain chose Palin he spent far more time and ink questioning and criticizing the ticket than praising it.  McCain surely didn’t go looking for any more “endorsements” like Will’s.  Will has also been relentlessly critical of Palin since then.

– We can only vote for the candidates we have.  I agree with you that McCain “disqualified” himself by putting Palin on the ticket, but surely a reasonable person could have argued that Obama’s policy positions and minimal experience equally disqualified him to be president.

– Are we now conclude that all 45.7% of the American voting electorate who pulled the lever for McCain are now “Palin endorsers?”   Is it really that way now, Andrew?  Us against all the rest of them?

Anyone with a passing knowledge of Will’s columns in the past two years, having read your attempts to shoehorn him into a Fox New-Krauthammer-Palin acolyte caricature, would have to wonder what alternate universe you’re living in.

Another wants specifics:

When did Will’s endorsement of the GOP ticket occur? I don’t recall him ever openly endorsing the McCain-Palin ticket. In fact, in one column he came very close to saying he found Obama preferable to McCain:

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

Yep, Will’s long-held disdain of McCain did hold him back from a clear-throated endorsement, and I should have noted that. I stick, however, with my view that a vote for McCain – a 72 year-old survivor of cancer and torture – was a vote for Palin as a potential president. You do not get to avoid responsibility for that now. Ditto Biden, of course, when voting for Obama.

The Government Takeover Already Happened

A new report finds that 6.3 million people lost job-based health insurance in 2009, that Medicaid provided coverage for 3.5 million of those workers, and that the federal government already shoulders 27 percent of the US healthcare bill. David Frum responds that the "'government takeover' of healthcare has already happened":

Under these circumstances, you have to wonder whether the preferred Republican big idea – federally subsidized risk pools – is really such a superior alternative to the Democratic plan for subsidized private insurance. Either way the federal government ends up paying the costs of treating the uninsured and uninsurable sickest – and post 2009, there may for many years be many more such people than expected or imagined back when the risk pool idea first began to circulate.

But healthcare spending grew more slowly than it has in decades, which is good news, right? Not neccessarily, says Ezra Klein:

The reality is that 2003, when health-care spending jumped by 8.3 percent, was a better year for health-care spending than 2009, when it rose by only 4 percent. The reason is that in 2003, GDP growth was an anemic-but-present 2.5 percent, while in 2009, GDP shrank by 2.6 percent. That meant the 2003 gap was smaller, and thus more sustainable.