Bereaved family members of Preeti Rathi who died of injuries following an acid attack in Mumbai at her home in Narela village on June 3, 2013 in New Delhi, India. 23-year-old Preeti was cremated with state of honors here today. Some unidentified attackers threw acid on Preeti as she alighted from the New Delhi-Mumbai Garib Rath Express at Bandra station in Mumbai on May 2. Her family has demanded CBI probe into her murder. By Sunil Saxena/Hindustan Times via Getty Images.
Researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong surveyed 71 Chinese mothers and 144 American mothers of European and African descent, as well as their 13-year-old children, to parse parenting styles:
The novel finding is that Chinese mothers more often than the Americans said their self-worth was tied to the success of their children, agreeing with statements like “When my daughter fails, I feel badly about myself”. Basing their self-worth on their children’s success accounted for 25 per cent of the between-country variance in mothers’ psychological control of their children. The researchers speculated other relevant factors could be: the Chinese notion of guan – according to which parents must dedicate themselves to their offspring, with their children’s success in the eyes of society taken as a sign of good parenting; and the Chinese focus on a “face” culture – the idea that one’s sense of worth is measured by the respect gained from others.
The limitations of the study:
The study doesn’t prove that basing their own self worth in their children’s success causes Chinese mothers to exert greater psychological control over their children. It’s possible the causal direction runs the other way, or both ways. The study is also limited in only focusing on psychological control while neglecting behavioural control.
“Sonnet 64” by Edmund Spenser (1552-1599):
Coming to kisse her lyps, (such grace I found)
Me seemd I smelt a gardin of sweet flowres:
that dainty odours from them threw around
for damzels fit to decke their lovers bowres.
Her lips did smell lyke unto Gillyflowers,
her ruddy cheeks lyke unto Roses red:
her snowy browes lyke budded Bellamoures,
her lovely eyes lyke Pincks but newly spred,
Her goodly bosome lyke a Strawberry bed,
her neck lyke to a bounch of Cullambynes:
her brest lyke lillyes, ere theyr leaves be shed,
her nipples lyke young blossomd Jessemynes,
Such fragrant flowers doe give most odorous smell,
But her sweet odour did them all excel.
Spenser poems from over the weekend here and here.
(From Amoretti, published in London in 1595 by William Ponsonby. Lady in a Garden, circa 1912, by Frederick Carl Frieseke via Wikimedia Commons)
Steve Coll argues that legislation that aims to protect journalists from “indiscriminate government subpoenas” is important, but only if done right:
[Current guidelines for federal prosecutors seeking evidence from journalists] are far from ideal—they have loopholes that give an Attorney General wide discretion. Yet they have often discouraged Justice from overreaching. The guidelines require that the Attorney General sign off on all media subpoenas, that any demands “be as narrowly drawn as possible,” and that, in all but the most exceptional cases, news organizations be notified of a subpoena, giving them time to appeal it in court. …
In the long run, to rebalance the national-security state and to otherwise revitalize American democracy, the United States requires a Supreme Court willing to deepen protections for investigative reporters, as the majority in Branzburg would not. In response to criticism about the A.P. case, Obama has reintroduced federal legislation that would clarify journalists’ rights. Such a federal “shield law” might be constructive, but new legislation with overly broad national-security exceptions would be even worse than the status quo.
Peter Sterne talks to the Society of Professional Journalists:
The proposed federal shield law before the Senate is even weaker than Colorado’s. It simply allows journalists to petition a judge, who weighs the story’s public interest value and decides whether the journalist should be forced to reveal his or her sources. The Society of Professional Journalists, which has been pushing for shield laws, said that something is better than nothing, but it nonetheless called for stronger protections.
Meanwhile, Dick Durbin equivocates on who should be protected by a federal shield law:
[H]ere is the bottom line – the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013?
We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection. We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.
The canine version of this cat confessional:
Sarah Kliff talks to experts about the competitiveness between health insurers on Obamacare’s exchanges:
“I would characterize it as modest plan competition,” Caroline Pearson, vice president for health reform at Avalere Helath, said. “In most markets, there seems to be a bit more choice than what’s available in the market today. But we’re certainly not seeing a wild influx of plans into the market.”
Cohn claims that more insurers in isn’t neccesarily better:
[T]here’s such a thing as too much choice in health insurance. And it actually shouldn’t take more than a few plans to foster serious competition, particularly given all the other changes Obamacare is making. “It’s important not to lose sight of the obvious stuff,” says Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This market will become much more competitive just because people will be able to compare prices (which they can’t now because of medical underwriting) and be guaranteed access.”
Yglesias explains why too much competitiveness in the exchanges could be bad:
With a lot of insurers in the field, what essentially happens is that market power shifts to the hospitals and other providers. Insurers need to “compete” to gain access to key providers, so providers can charge high prices that insurers then largely pass along to customers as high premiums. It seems to me that the optimal situation is to have a few insurers in the exchange so that competition plus Medical Loss Ratio regulations keep premiums reasonable, while ensuring that the insurers retain market power vis-à-vis providers and thus can act as bulk purchasing agents on behalf of patients. But how many is “a few”? Three? Four? I don’t know. But as states set exchanges up, this is something to think about.
El Cerrito, California, 7 am
Jared B. Keller surveys research on Internet addiction:
As [cognitive scientist Tom] Stafford explains, our love for the Internet is rooted in the fact that human beings, in Ghose’s words, “compulsively seek unpredictable payoffs.” The cognitive-reward structure offered by services like email and social media are similar to those of a casino slot machine: “Most of it is junk, but every so often, you hit the jackpot.” This is a symptom of low-risk/high-reward activities like lotteries in general. As researchers found in a 2001 article in International Gambling Studies, systems that offer a low-cost chance of winning a very large prize are more likely to attract repetitive participation and, in turn, stimulate excessive (and potentially problematic) play. Although the stimuli are different (the payoff on the Internet being juicy morsels of information and entertainment rather than money), Stafford says that the immediacy and ubiquity of Internet “play”—i.e. being able to check your tweets or emails on your phone with no major transaction cost—only increases the likelihood that someone will get sucked into a continuous cycle.
In GIFs – Buzzfeed style. Has some funny moments.
My one complaint is the use of the term “bigots” to describe anyone opposed to marriage equality. Some are; many aren’t. And the use of the word does nothing to help engage opponents of equality – and merely reeks of the Maddow-like smugness that encourages the foes of equality to dig in.
