Jessa Gamble explores it:
UCLA anthropologist Joan Silk’s work looks at primate aggression and status conflicts. Agonistic behaviour ultimately boils down to competition for limited resources, and this feeling survives in human fighting language. "I’m going to take what’s mine" is a strong motivating phrase even when it’s not really clear what the fighter exactly feels entitled to.
Ramesh Ponnuru recently proposed that parents get a $5,000-per-kid credit for raising children because taxes on those children's eventual earnings will fund Social Security and Medicare:
We still need to have children so that we can enjoy a secure old age. Modern societies have disguised the old bargain by socializing it. They maintain expensive government programs to assist the elderly, financed by successive generations. The children still take care of the elderly when they grow up, but now it’s all the children providing for all the elderly, collectively. … Now it is possible to enjoy a free ride, as the economists say: Don’t raise children yourself, but benefit in old age from the fact that others have done so.
David Berreby takes issue with Ponnuru's next point, that the welfare state is causing the drop in fertility:
Germany has a generous social welfare program, and its fertility rate in 2010 was 1.4. But Norway and France, which also have cradle-to-grave protection by American standards, are very close to the 2.1 "replacement rate" at which a developed nation's population stays stable. That's higher fertility than you'll find in Iran, where the social security system is private and doesn't cover a quarter of the population. So I think Ponnuru's argument makes sense on ground of fairness. It doesn't hold water, though, as a way to defend national fertility.
[Re-posted from earlier today with several incisive questions added by readers.]
A glimpse at the nun's fascinating bio:
Sister Jeannine Gramick is a Roman Catholic religious sister and a co-founder of the activist organization New Ways Ministry, a Catholic social justice center working for justice and reconciliation of lesbian and gay people with the institutional Catholic Church. After a review of her public activities on behalf of the Church that concluded in a finding of grave doctrinal error, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) declared in 1999 that she should no longer be engaged in pastoral work with lesbian and gay persons. In 2000, her congregation, in an attempt to thwart further conflict with the Vatican, commanded her not to speak publicly about homosexuality. She responded by saying, "I choose not to collaborate in my own oppression by restricting a basic human right [to speak]. To me this is a matter of conscience."
TNR recently profiled Sister Gramick. To submit a question for her, simply enter it into the field at the top of the Urtak poll (ignore the "YES or NO question" aspect and simply enter any open-ended question). We primed the poll with questions you can vote on right away – click "Yes" if you are interested in seeing Sister Gramick answer the question or "No" if you don't particularly care. We will air her responses soon.
Some factors:
People are more likely to lie or cheat if others are lying or cheating, or if a member of another social group (such as a student wearing a sweatshirt from a rival university) visibly flouts the rules. They are more likely to lie and cheat if they are in a foreign country rather than at home. Or if they are using digital rather than real money. Or even if they are knowingly wearing fake rather than real Gucci sunglasses.
The price of meat has plummeted since 1982:
We now spend a much bigger share of our grocery money on processed foods, which includes things like frozen dinners, canned soups and snacks. We spend much less on meat, largely because meat is much cheaper than it was 30 years ago.
Priscilla Gilman compares her divorce to her parents' divorce:
Where my parents spent eight years post separation locked in legal battle over assets before finally divorcing and only were in the same room three times in the twenty years after their divorce, Richard and I did six months of mediation with a social worker, psychologist, and lawyer, wrote a parenting plan that covered everything from financial arrangements to our parenting philosophy, did a nesting custody arrangement (where the kids stay in one place and the parents move in and out of the apartment). We each saw a therapist individually, and worked collaboratively in all decisions regarding the children.
It took time, humility, and a lot of hard work, but Richard and I now have a beautifully supportive co-parenting relationship and a true and rewarding friendship.
DJ Earworm's latest offering to the pop gods:
Steven Cook skeptically surveys recent reporting claiming to have found them:
Let’s keep in mind that Assad has every incentive to continue to fight: He has no place to go (unless you believe rumors [that Assad could go into exile in Russia]). For Assad the fight is and always was about securing his family. Even as the [Free Syrian Army (FSA)] has grown more capable, it remains no match for the Syrian military, which has proved to be surprisingly resilient. Finally, it seems that Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran will continue to stick by him, which means that money and arms will continue to flow to the military and shabiha. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that Assad will give up.
Brian Whitaker cautions against interpreting any of this as a reason for more "decisive" US action:
Amid the continuing horrific news from Syria, it is very tempting to say that "we" ought to be doing more. But we shouldn't assume that doing more will necessarily help, and we should try to distinguish between the needs of the Syrian people and the games that states play amongst themselves. Syrians have a right to shape their own future and will do so – if only we let them.
There is some evidence that they are. Nate Cohn takes a closer look at the voters Obama is targeting:
In the six national polls, 5 percent of college educated whites were undecided compared to 9 percent of whites without a college degree. Romney’s road to victory starts with consolidating disaffected voters who do not approve of the President’s performance. Unsurprisingly then, the Obama campaign’s initial wave of advertising appears well-suited to disrupting those efforts.
Depicting Romney as a plutocratic corporate raider seems likely to resonate with working class voters, especially since many traditionally have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. On the other hand, most of these voters harbor deep reservations about Obama’s performance and probably voted for Republicans in the 2010 midterms. Romney’s main goal in the coming months will be to convince them to join his cause.
A reminder of why this Middle Eastern state is unlike the others. It was also wonderful to see servicemembers march proudly in the Pride Parade in Washington DC on Saturday. They got huge cheers. Yes: that is change I can believe in.
The Dish 
