Month: July 2013

Quote For The Day II

US-JUSTICE-GAY-MARRIAGE

“When slavery was assailed twenty-five years ago, the whole land took the alarm, and every species of argument and subterfuge was resorted to by the defenders of slavery.  The mental activity was amazing; all sorts of excuses, political, economical, social, theological and ethnological, were coined into barricades against the advancing march of anti-slavery sentiment.  The same activity now shows itself, but has added nothing new to the argument for slavery or against emancipation …

When the accursed slavery system shall once be abolished, and the Negro, long cast out from the human family, and governed like a beast of burden, shall be gathered under the divine government of justice, liberty and humanity, men will be ashamed to remember that they were ever deluded by the flimsy nonsense which they have allowed themselves to urge against the freedom of the long enslaved millions of our land. That day is not far off,” – Frederick Douglass, 1862.

(Photo: Michael Knaapen and his husband John Becker react outside the US Supreme Court in Washington DC on June 26, 2013. The US Supreme Court last Wednesday struck down a controversial federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, in a major victory for supporters of same-sex marriage.The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had denied married gay and lesbian couples in the United States the same rights and benefits that straight couples have long taken for granted. By Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty.)

Why Do The Poor Become Parents?

Dana Goldstein reviews Doing the Best I Can, a book on inner-city fatherhood:

Poor, single dads have a lot in common with their female counterparts. Both young men and young women in these neighborhoods see forgoing contraception as a key sign of sexual trust and fidelity, and they demonstrate little anxiety about unexpected pregnancy—a surprising notion for many middle-class Americans, who viscerally fear the loss of educational, career, and romantic opportunities that premature parenthood brings. Far from disdaining marriage, low-income single parents have fully absorbed mainstream cultural messages about what that institution should entail: two good jobs, home ownership, and a “soul mate” kind of love. Because these goals appear impossible for people living hand-to-mouth at the bottom rung of the American economy, however, men told the researchers that marriage is generally off the table as a realistic lifestyle. Indeed, they mistrust women, whom they see as enforcers of middle-class earning expectations they cannot meet. The love these men feel for their children is far stronger than any romantic connection they’ve made with those children’s mothers.

Reihan chimes in:

I’m more inclined to think that there might be some value to marriage-promotion programs, not because poor people “don’t respect marriage” — as Dana points out, that is not generally true — but rather because committed relationships require a skill set that is not evenly distributed across the population.

As women have entered the workforce, “traditional” gender roles have been fading. And so individual couples and families find themselves negotiating responsibilities and boundaries in ways that weren’t strictly necessary in an age of rigidly-defined gender roles. As a good friend pointed out in conversation a few weeks back, it is thus not surprising that marriages have tended to be more durable and successful among educated Americans with strong communication skills, as they are more accustomed to navigating complex relationships in the course of their working lives. Imparting communication skills is extremely difficult, and it might be a lost cause. But the best marriage-promotion programs rest on the idea that communication skills that can reduce friction in relationships really can be taught.

TNC’s dispatch on a Chicago family getting evicted feels tangentially related:

When we left, the beautiful brown boy was standing on the sidewalk next to his parents. His mother held the baby on her hip. She said nothing. One of the officers wished them good luck. The man yelled in response, “You talk about us like we dead. We ain’t dead. We still a family. Good luck to you.” He said it in such a way that he seemed to be trying to convince himself. …

When I saw the father today, I saw a man without the power to set his own laws. I’ve seen the same pose out in the streets where men yell and threaten violence. I used to think such a display fearsome, but people who must show their power through threatening violence inhabit a low rung.

Egypt Didn’t Oust Islamism

Elizabeth Nugent believes that it “would be a mistake to read the mobilization against the president and in support of the military as simply anti-Islamist, as a political ideology”:

Egyptian citizens overwhelmingly support the mixing of religion and politics. They also just protested in historic numbers against an Islamist ruling party. The political questions facing the Egyptian electorate, then, appear to be what form of Islamism, which Islamists, which of the social, economic, and political laws included in sharia to implement, and how – and perhaps most importantly, how to balance all of this with a democratic system reflecting the will of the people (the data similarly reveal high levels of support for democracy among Egyptians).

In post-Mubarak Egypt, where the Brotherhood is no longer the only Islamist game in town, we do ourselves a disservice to think about Egyptian politics as a binary of pro- and anti-Islamist. There are currently a number of Islamist parties for Egyptian voters to consider, including but not limited to the Building and Development party, formed by the once violent Gama`a Islamiyya and which seeks to establish a democracy based on sharia law; the Flag party, founded earlier this year by popular cleric Sheikh Hazem Salah Abu Ismail; the Nour Party, a Salafi party that surprised by winning almost a third of contested seats in Egypt’s 2011 parliamentary elections; the Watan party, which split with Nour over disagreements over the level of political involvement from Salafi clerics. At the very least, Egyptian political currents might currently be divided between three strands: pro-Brotherhood Islamists, anti-Brotherhood Islamists, and secularists. Even better, we might start to think of Islamism as a spectrum – with more and less Islamist individuals and parties, conservative and liberal Islamists and parties – based on developing political ideologies and concrete political platforms.

“The Hinge Of American History”

Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of the denouement to the Battle of Gettsyburg, the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and by most accounts its turning point. Reviewing Allen Guelzo’s new history of those three days in July, Gettysburg, Stu Seidel emphasizes that the battle lines began to be drawn before the armies ever met on the fields of Pennsylvania:

Long before taking readers to the battle, Guelzo details the chess pieces who will oppose one another on the first three days of July in 1863. He enumerates the underlying political and military forces at play on Lee as he planned the invasion: Lee’s desire to force a negotiated settlement to the war by invading a Northern state and the challenges Lee faced in reconfiguring command of the Army of Northern Virginia following the death of Stonewall Jackson, Lee’s trusted and accomplished field commander, in the closing hours of the Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863. On the Union side, Guelzo sets out the political and military challenges of simply finding a suitable commander for the Army of the Potomac. Not a single corps commander at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg had held a comparable post a year earlier. In an army so politicized that Lincoln’s choices to command were limited to Democrats who sympathized more with the president’s principal nemesis, former Army of the Potomac commander Gen. George McClellan, than with the president himself.

Anne Kelly Knowles uses an awesome interactive map to shed light on Robert E. Lee’s losing hand:

Altogether, our mapping reveals that Lee never had a clear view of enemy forces; the terrain itself hid portions of the Union Army throughout the battle. In addition, Lee did not grasp – or acknowledge – just how advantageous the Union’s position was. In a reversal of the Battle of Fredericksburg, where Lee’s forces held the high ground and won a great victory, Union General George Meade held the high ground at Gettysburg. Lee’s forces were spread over an arc of seven miles, while the Union’s compact position, anchored on several hills, facilitated communication and quick troop deployment. Meade also received much better information, more quickly, from his subordinates. Realizing the limits of what Lee could see makes his decisions appear even bolder, and more likely to fail, than we knew.

Relatedly, Kate Pais lists 10 items most don’t know about the battle, including the academic past of one of its central figures:

Renowned war hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who is sometimes credited as the most influential figure in the Battle of Gettysburg, wasn’t even going to enlist in the service originally; he hesitated because he was supposed to take a sabbatical from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine to study in Europe for two years. He was struck with a pang of patriotism and instead used his sabbatical to grant leave from the school and become lieutenant colonel in the 20th Maine Infantry.

And Pete Wehner summarizes the meaning that endured beyond Gettysburg’s carnage:

[T]hese horrific losses were hardly in vain. The Civil War, after all, achieved two monumentally important things: It ended slavery and it preserved the Union, which meant it preserved and extended liberty in America and the world. George Will refers to the Battle of Gettysburg as “the hinge of American, and hence world, history.” That seems to me to be a fair judgment–and today is a good day not only to remember the annihilation that began 150 years ago but also to give thanks for the courage and purpose that was on display on the grassy hills, the consecrated ground, of Gettysburg. If the North had lost instead of won at Gettysburg, America, as we know it, would have ended. And everything would be different. Instead this nation experienced a new birth of freedom–and a government of the people, by the people and for the people did not perish from the earth.

Why Should Women Shave? Ctd

A female reader writes:

This thread has been fascinating to read. My perspective: When I was in Basic Training, I didn’t have time to shave. I was 18 when I went in, and I got to spend nine weeks growing out the hair on my legs. BDUs are pants, of course, but our Physical Training (PT) uniforms were shorts for the first few weeks while it was still warm outside. While the men had to shave their faces every day, less suffer the consequences (having to dry-shave with a pink disposable razor in front of the battalion), women didn’t have that requirement and none of us had the time.

The day before graduation, we were released to spend with our families. I went back to the hotel room of my best friends, who had come to see me graduate, and immediately stole a friend’s razor to shave my legs.

There’s photographic evidence of this, which I will decline to share, but it’s humorous. For me, shaving that day was something I could do for myself, that military could not regulate (the only regulation on women’s hair in this regard at the time was that we could not have visible facial hair) and that I could take my time to do. I wasn’t hurried, there weren’t 59 other women trying to use the shower … I sat in the tub and shaved my legs. It was glorious.

I have never liked the feel of my legs rubbing together when they are unshaven. I spent a month in the field on a training exercise in Korea and could not shave. In the field it didn’t matter; we lived in pants and I never could feel it. But the moment we returned to the barracks, I shaved. I couldn’t sleep until I did because it was bothering me so much. I just don’t like the feel of my legs when they’re hairy. (Funny side note: during field training in areas where there are a lot of ticks or other bugs in high grass, soldiers of both genders were encouraged to shave to reduce the chance of bites, infection, and bringing something home with you.)

Also, your reader who commented on the practical reasons for shaving, including all of our messy femaleness, is dead on. Hairy areas gather sweat and other fluids. It smells, things get matted … unpleasant all around.

What’s More Patriotic Than Bad Beer?

Declining to believe “America’s shitbrews are all the same,” Will Gordon ranks “36 cheap American beers” to guide your drunkenness today. Near the bottom of the list, at number 35? Bud Light Lime:

When Anheuser-Busch spit this one out a few years ago it seemed like a pretty good idea, as terrible ideas go. The world never needs more flavors of Bud Light, but the popularity of the otherwise worthless Corona proves that folks love to limen up their beers. Barroom fruit is repulsive—ever think about where your lime’s been before it lands in your drink? Nowhere nice—so if Bud Light Lime were any good at all, it would be a little leap forward. But alas, the alleged lime flavoring in no way resembles people food. Bud Light Lime tastes like green Froot Loops soaked in thigh sweat.

PBR comes in at number 5:

It took me a few years to come around on PBR, probably because I was the sort of dipshit who worried about what message my beer was sending. Now that I’m liberated from such petty concerns, I can tell the world, “Hey, look at me spend $14 to get all-day drunk on clean, nondescript beer that tastes like Budweiser is supposed to.”

And number 1? Grain Belt Premium:

I always think of Minnesota as a secretly sexy place, and not just because of Kent Hrbek and Al Franken. Maybe it’s all the trout and music and Lutherans. Toss in a smooth, creamy, and dreamy local budget brew like Grain Belt and it’s a wonder Minnesota hasn’t seceded to form its own naked blond utopia. Grain Belt Premium is America’s finest cheap beer.

Quote For The Day

“The kind invitation I receive from you on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be presentwith them at their celebration of the 50th. 503px-Thomas_Jefferson_by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800 anniversary of American independance; as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. it adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. but acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to controul.

I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made.

may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.

all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them,” – Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826.

(Painting: Rembrandt Peale, 1800)

Cannabis And Schizophrenia

Obama Admin. Unveils New Policy Easing Medical Marijuana Prosecutions

Those of us who favor legalization should not dismiss some of the risks associated with cannabis use. We devoted a chapter in our collection, “The Cannabis Closet” to those risks and potential harms. And one of them is the relationship between heavy marijuana use among teens and subsequent schizophrenia. The studies are small but definitely add to the case that pot-smoking should be restricted to adult use, especially if there is a family history of mental illness:

A 2007 study in the Lancet, a British medical journal, concludes that using marijuana increases the risk of young people developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia. This risk is greatest—up to a 200% increase—among those who use marijuana heavily and who start using at a younger age.

There are, however, some obvious caveats. First off, do teens with psychological issues self-medicate first with pot? In other words, is the pot-use a sign of early schizophrenia rather than the other way round? Mark Kleiman takes a few steps back:

Those in pre-Boomer and early Boomer birth cohorts in the U.S. – anyone born before about 1952 – had essentially zero experience with cannabis before the age of 18. But that changed rapidly. More than 10% of the high-school seniors of 1979 – roughly speaking, the birth cohort of 1961 – were daily or near-daily pot-smokers. Then the prevalence of heavy adolescent use fell sharply for a little more than a decade, reaching its trough around 1992, and has rebounded since. Yet the rate of schizophrenia diagnosis shows no corresponding cohort-to-cohort swings. (Nor, for that matter, between high- and low-cannabis-prevalence areas within the U.S. or cross-nationally.)

Then there’s the more central question: would legalizing cannabis help or hurt this population? One way I believe that legalization can help avoid this is that under a legal regime, the drug really could be prevented from being so easy to purchase by teens. Right now, it’s easy – and there’s no way to know exactly what you’re getting. High CBD strains might be an option to minimize harm – but keeping pot away from teens may well be better achieved by legalization rather than continuing Prohibition.

But let’s say the risk increases for those kids.

It seems absurd to say that wider cannabis consumption wouldn’t have some costs. The real question is: compared with what? Kleiman again:

Note, for example, that people put in jail or prison are at risk of severe damage, especially if while inside they become victims of physical or sexual assault. Some commit suicide. So the mental-health costs of arresting 650,000 people a year, and holding 30,000 or more prisoners at any one time, for cannabis offenses – costs that would be largely, though not entirely, abolished by legalization – might easily match or exceed the mental-health costs of increased exposure to cannabis.

All substances – alcohol and cigarettes come to mind immediately – can cause harm as well as good. My own view is that more cannabis use would improve our society in many ways. But I cannot know that for sure. What we need is a sober weighing of pros and cons, rather than context-free scare stories. But fear is what sustains Prohibition, so it is unsurprising that it is a tool deployed by the once libertarian WSJ Op-Ed page.

(Photo: David McNew/Getty)

Egypt’s New President

Ty McCormick introduces us to Adil Mansour, formerly the president of the Supreme Constitutional Court, who was sworn in today:

“He is not the president of Egypt in the same way that Morsy or Mubarak were presidents of Egypt,” Tarek Masoud, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, tells Foreign Policy. The best analogy, according to Masoud, is probably Sufi Abu Taleb, who served as acting head of state for eight days following the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981.

“The administration of the country is going to be in the hands of the military, but they had to put a constitutional face on it. [Mansour] is under no illusions about the extent of his power,” says Masoud.

Despite his subordinate position, however, Mansour will likely exercise considerable control over the drafting of a new election law, experts say. “His main job will be to get an electoral law done,” Michael Wahid Hanna, a fellow at the Century Foundation, tells FP. Over the past year, the Supreme Constitutional Court has twice invalidated electoral laws drafted by the Shura Council, Egypt’s upper house of parliament. The result, according to Hanna, has been a delay in holding parliamentary elections and a deepening of the political crisis in Egypt.