New research finds that upticks in the temperature encourages conflict, ” from interpersonal spats — such as aggressive horn-honking by automobile drivers — to full-blown civil war and societal collapse”:
The researchers found that a temperature rise of one standard deviation — which, in the United States today, occurs when the average temperature for a given month is about 3° Celsius higher than usual — increases the frequency of interpersonal violence by 4%, and the risk of intergroup conflict, such as civil war or rioting, by 14%. “The level of consistency in how people are responding was surprising to us,” says Solomon Hsiang, an econometrician at the University of California Berkeley, who led the study. He and his team warn that climate’s influence on behavior is likely to become more apparent as the planet warms and precipitation patterns change.
The Syrian conflict is just one recent example of the connection between climate and conflict, a field that is increasingly piquing the interest of criminologists, economists, historians, and political scientists. Studies have begun to crop up in leading journals examining this connection in everything from the collapse of the Mayan civilization to modern police training in the Netherlands. A survey published today in Science takes a first-ever 30,000-foot view of this research, looking for trends that tie these examples together through fresh analysis of raw data from 60 quantitative studies. It offers evidence that unusually high temperatures could lead to tens of thousands more cases of “interpersonal” violence—murder, rape, assault, etc.—and more than a 50 percent increase in “intergroup” violence, i.e. war, in some places.
The Economist is pleasantly surprised about Mali’s election to restore democratic government in the wake of its civil war:
The election [on Sunday] was praised by observers for its high turnout and overall transparency. But coming just six months after a French-led force chased away Islamist militants who had seized control of the country’s vast north, and hastily arranged under intense international pressure, it was nonetheless riddled with flaws. Hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised for lack of new biometric identification cards. Even some who made it to the polls, cards in hand, could not find their names on voter lists.
Still, it was not the debacle many outsiders had forecast. On an otherwise quiet day, voters crowded the streets leading to polling stations. Many marvelled that they had never seen such numbers at the ballot box. The 53.5% turnout shattered the previous record by 15 percentage points. Perhaps most important in a country still jittery after the jihadist occupation of the north, the day passed without violence.
Meanwhile, Michael Totten praises Morocco as a model of moderation in the Arab World:
Morocco has free and fair elections, but not for its head of state. That has to change sooner or later. The Moroccan monarchy will eventually have to sideline itself or face being sidelined by others. Smart Arab kings know this is true of the institution in general. As Jordan’s King Abdullah said to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, “where are monarchies in 50 years?” In the meantime, Morocco provides a safe space for peaceable coexistence between liberals and Islamists, Muslims and Jews (including Israelis on holiday), Arabs and Berbers, modernists and traditionalists.
The Western press has wasted a lot of words lately describing the Muslim Brotherhood as moderate. But Muhammad VI is a real moderate. He’s a conservative in the sense that he belongs to a very old tradition and order, and he’s a liberal insofar as he advances women’s rights and has willingly abdicated some of his power. He’s a Muslim ruler who not only protects Jews, but declares Jewishness a part of Moroccan identity. He pushes for careful and deliberate change without overwhelming the country with too much at once, thus avoiding a hostile and potentially violent reaction from traditionalists.
Morocco is a little like Costa Rica during the Cold War—a calm, friendly, stable, sane, peaceable, and essentially civilized oasis in a region that has known precious little of those things.
Previous Dish on the recent upheavals in the Arab world here, here, and here.
Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant outline various ways to process human corpses. One option on the horizon:
Alkaline hydrolysis is an established technology that is already in use—albeit for the disposal of cattle infected with spongiform disease and cadavers that have outlived their usefulness at teaching and research institutions. Because of the utter lack of sentimentality attached to the process and the resulting goo it produces, alkaline hydrolysis has been largely left untouched for regular old funerals, even in places where it’s a legal means of disposing of corpses.
If the green lobby ever gets true power and starts wielding it against end-of-life norms, you will soon likely have no choice, however, so getting on board with the idea of having your body reduced to an oily, neutral substance sooner rather than later can help you to be a true early adopter in this area. Even more appealing, it uses about five to ten percent of the energy cremation does.
How it works:
In the process of alkaline hydrolysis, your corpse will be slid into a large stainless steel contraption that looks a bit like a freestanding pressure cooker, mainly because that’s what it is. An alkaline solution is introduced into the sealed chamber and heated to between 170 and 350 degrees Fahrenheit (depending on which method is used) and allowed to stew until your skin, organs, tissue and viscera have completely dissolved into the solution. A similar process also introduces pressure to the mix to speed up the process.
All that’s left over is a squishy version of your bones, which are then crushed and presented to your family. The rest of you is gone in virtually every sense of the word: The alkaline solution and heat completely destroy DNA; even a transhumanist would have a hard time conceiving of you being present in the solution at the end of the four hours.
Update from a reader:
As others will certainly point out, the technique described in your post was documented in the Mary Roach book, Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. Highly recommended.
My wife consumes books like no person I have ever met. At times she will share with me opening lines that she knows I may find interesting. One such line is from a book by Toni Morrison, Paradise, and it has stuck with me for a long time:
“They shoot the white girl first.”
Six words – none longer than five letters – that set a scene loaded with tension. The author has already brought us violence and racial issues and possibly gender- and/or sex-related plot lines. How could you not read on?
Another reader:
You mentioned the Bulwer-Lytton contest for bad first lines of novels, but you should also know about this spinoff contest, for bad first lines of novels, which tend to be much funnier. This year’s winner: “The men greeted each other, wearing various smiles on their faces.” My favorite from this year: “‘BOOM!’ said the bomb very loudly.” Another fave from an earlier contest: “In anticipation, John licked his own lips.”
The ellipsis alone offers so much insight into the character of the narrator: his self-consciousness as a writer, his awareness of the judgments of others (who will be quick to correct him if he does not correct himself), his insecurity, his brutal honesty.
“He was born with the gift of laughter, and a sense that the world was mad,” – Scaramouche, Rafael Sabatini.
“Mother died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know,” – The Stranger, Camus.
The author of that sentence, one Clive Staples Lewis, must have enjoyed writing that.
Another reader:
You missed the best opportunity ever to loop a post full circle by neglecting one of the best opening lines of all time by the man himself:
“The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed,” Dark Tower, Stephen King.
For a guy obsessed with an opening sentence, he laid down one helluva one. And he knows it (as obsessive Dark Tower readers will know).
One more completes the short thread:
For my money, the best first line of a story was for one never written. On an episode of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, Lou Grant is explaining to Mary how to write the lead in a good story, and he gives this as an example: “Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Four shots slammed into my gut, and I was off on the greatest adventure of my life.”
Readers are also offering suggestions over at our Facebook page.
Sara Gorman cautions against laws that would prevent mentally ill people from acquiring firearms:
There are two main reasons to approach these kinds of laws with a healthy dose of caution: one reason is that gun control efforts focusing on mental illness have the potential to exacerbate public stigma about the potential violence associated with mental disorders; the second reason is that gun laws that in particular involve collecting the names of people with mental illness in national databases have the potential to deter people from seeking the care they may desperately need.
Ample evidence has suggested that stigma and discrimination against people with mental illness is often correlated with perceptions that people with mental illness are inherently violent. People who believe that mental illness is associated with violence are more likely to condone forced legal action and coerced treatment of people with mental illness and may feel that victimizing and bullying people with mental illness is in some way justified.
The idea that mental illness and violence are closely related is quite common. A 2006 national survey found that 60% of Americans believed that people with schizophrenia were likely to act violently toward another individual. Even so, research has repeatedly established that psychiatric disorders do not make people more likely to act in a violent manner. Gun laws targeting people with mental illness are likely to worsen the perception that mental illness and violence go hand in hand, and, as a result, stigma and discrimination are likely to be exacerbated.
Marina Galperina flags the above video, shot today in Russia. It’s a scene reminiscent of fascist states in the early 1930s:
If anyone has any confusion about what Russia’s recently-adopted anti-gay laws do to its public, let me translate some of the audible dialogue in the video above[:] A young man [Gay rights activist Kirill Kalugin] decides to picket in Palace Square. He stands there alone with a rainbow flag, knowingly breaking this summer’s new anti-”gay propaganda” bill. Then, a large group of Airborne service members (striped-tank tops) circle around him and their leader starts the guerilla interrogation.
“What are you doing here on Airborne Army Day?”
“I am picketing,” he says, trying to keep on his feet while being manhandled by the group.
“Well, we do not agree with this and ask you to stop this sort of action and your one-man picket.” They begin to push him around. He falls.
“Oh, look he slipped and fell. Don’t do that,” the soldier says, performatively at the journalists trying to get closer. The man is visibly frightened as the soldiers form a chain around him and began to chant, smacking their fists into their palms.
“CALL THE POLICE ON HIM,” someone jeer. “STAND RIGHT THERE,” a few yell. The police arrive (blue shirts, police hats) and attempt to drag the man out of the circle, so the soldiers move closer, block their access and pushing the cops.
“What the fuck were you thinking, showing up at the Palace Square, faggot?” the leader yells.
“You guys are animals,” the protestor rasps, while another soldier chokes him and shakes him by his neck. As the cops try to remove the illegally protesting young man, the soldiers start shoving them and throwing punches. In the next shot, they encircle the police vehicle — “We’re not going to let them fucking move anywhere.” — after their leader tries to get into the cruiser and drag the protestor out, yelling, “Why are you defending him?!”
Is it me or don’t the steroidal paratroopers look like French circuit queens? The displaced homo-eroticism is almost comically obvious, while being equally disgusting.
Update from a reader:
How the hell did you guys miss the fact that the back of every police officer’s uniform says “OMOH” … “HOMO” spelled backwards.
This month Louisiana police illegally arrested more than a dozen men for “crimes against nature” (agreeing to have sex within private residences, with no money exchanged). It raises the question: How can 13 states still have such laws on the books? Because state-level Republicans love ’em:
Lawmakers in Texas have quietly killed every legislative effort to erase its anti-sodomy statute (the one that was actually stricken down by the Supreme Court), which makes sense when you consider Gov. Rick Perry is on the record defending it, and the state GOP recently made a sodomy ban part of its official platform. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback left his state’s sodomy statute out of a 2012 push to purge outdated laws. The last serious repeal push in Louisiana came in 2003, shortly before the Supreme Court decision, with opponents warning that legalized sodomy would lead to disease and child abuse—two things that, thanks to the sodomy ban, Louisiana had been mercifully free of for the last 207 years.
Keeping anti-sodomy statutes on the books serves no real function, since the crimes are impossible to prosecute. Mostly, the laws’ supporters just don’t want their states to legally acknowledge that there’s something okay about homosexuality. So-called crimes against nature, like other 19th-century relics such as mutton chops, DIY canning, and income inequality, are kind of “in” right now. In July, Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who is running for governor as a Republican, launched a new website to defend his state’s anti-sodomy law.
The Dish recently covered Cuccinelli’s bigotry here.
What better way to wrap up a week of Weiner than one final round of prurient-sounding names submitted by readers:
Did you notice – how could you not? – that the New York Post item about the Clintons and Weiner that had you so livid this week is written by one Frederic U. Dicker? No, I am not making this up. I don’t think anyone could.
Another asks:
Did you just write “pounding Weiner” in a blog post? If that was unintentional, I think all those giggle-inducing names are subconsciously getting to you.
I’m English by origin. As a people, we will never stop giggling at funny names and Asian accents.
Another reader:
I’m surprised that none of your baseball fan correspondents have pointed out my favorite horribly unfortunate name, the late Johnny Dickshot. That’s bad enough, but his nickname was “Ugly,” making him Ugly Dickshot.
Another:
I give you Austin, TX urologist and vasectomy specialist Dr. Dick Chopp. He wears it loud and proud too; he regularly goes on local radio stations and revels in the double entendres the morning jocks come up with. And in my opinion, he’s actually done a good amount of de-stigmatizing the conditions that lead to visiting a urologist, making it no big for dudes to get their junk checked out.
Another presents:
Iowa girls basketball star Fonda Dicks, still remembered here for her scoring … 3,598 career points!
Some readers are not amused:
Enough with the “funny” names with sexual implications. Look, names are generally given to us by our parents, and surnames are inherited from ancestors in most cultures. Making fun of someone because of the name someone else gave them is sophomoric and gets pretty stale, pretty fast. As someone with an unusual last name in which teenagers and adolescents can find a sexual reference if they try hard enough, I can assure you that all those “Dicks” and “Weiners” out there have heard the same jokes over and over. How about moving along?
You think I have my own blog so I can “move along” when talking about funny names? You jest. For those who want to move along: don’t click the read-on. For those who don’t – wait! – there’s more:
As a high school teacher, I find myself in meetings with parents, counselors, and students pretty frequently. I have a hard time keeping a straight face every time someone brings up a kid’s scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities. According to Wikipedia: “The Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities is a set of intelligence tests first developed in 1977 by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson.” That’s right, Dick Woodcock.
Another:
I’m a 38-year-old woman, and it appears my first email to you is in relation to a silly, sexual name thread. I will own that just to share that my husband has worked with a Hollywood producer named Dick Suckle.
Ah, that felt good to share.
Another:
When I moved to the Rochester, NY area around 15 years ago, one of the first local ads I noticed was for a local car dealership. Apparently the locals were so used to it that they didn’t find it funny, but I still laugh every time I see an ad for Dick Ide.
Another:
Oh gosh, I guess I have to contribute. I grew up in St. Louis, where a prominent local family were the owners of the old Falstaff brewing company. Their name was “Griesedick” – pronounced pretty much as you would guess. I see from Wikipedia that the family has now re-entered the beer business.
Another:
Not sure if this one has made it in yet. Most Texans know the story about “Big Jim” Hogg, governor of Texas, and his unfortunately named daughter, Ima Hogg.
Another:
OK, since you’ve had about 30-odd posts on this, I thought it would be a great time to add some diversity into the topic. My former dentist’s name is Anita Fok.
Another:
More than a decade ago, I had a customer at the brokerage firm where I worked whose name was Irim Butt.
Another:
Since we’re all being a little puerile, I recently saw this Nixon campaign badge in a memorabilia store in LA:
All I can say is that it appeared to be genuine.
Another:
Maybe it is too late for this, but in my teens back in the ’60s I had a friend named Richard Zucker. He did not go by Dick.
Another:
In junior high school in Michigan I played basketball with one Harry Glanz.
Dish fave:
I always thought “Magic Johnson” was the best name ever.
One final reader:
My name can be interpreted as meaning “hairy male genitalia.” The best part is that this is a family name. No pressure there. I’ve been following the thread (Dishhead since 2008) and feel that, as an unfortunately named person, I should weigh in.
I used to be really bothered by it. Middle school in particular was just awful. But as I’ve gotten older it’s become less and less of a big deal. Obviously I’m not going to ever send dick pics to someone or get caught up in a public sex scandal, so I don’t have to worry about that. In my adult life, though, I have noticed two things about my name.
The first is that people usually don’t forget me. My name is memorable and chuckle-inducing, so it sets me apart from other folks. That’s helped me in building networks and relationships over the years. The second thing I’ve noticed is that someone’s reaction to my name usually says more about them than it does about me. I’m the first to admit that my name is funny, and most people will either not make mention of it or mention once or twice before moving on. There is a small subset of people, however, that can’t get over my name, and this inability to act like an adult usually tips me off (correctly) that they suffer from a massive lack of perspective.
So my takeaway in this is that an “unfortunate name” is only a real negative as long as one’s actions don’t mimic their name. In other words, don’t be a dick.
The economy added 162,000 jobs in July, according to government data released this morning, helping to bring the nation’s unemployment rate down but still short of what analysts had expected. The Labor Department reported robust hiring in industries such as retail, trade and professional services. But key sectors, including manufacturing and construction, were essentially unchanged. The jobless rate fell to 7.4 percent, although part of the decline was due to workers dropping out of the labor force. …
“Overall this is not a strong labor report,” said Alan MacEachin, an economist at Navy Federal Credit Union. The data are “consistent with a sluggish, lackluster economy.”
Chad Stone illustrates the numbers with a slew of charts:
Today’s disappointing jobs report reflects a familiar pattern.
Though private employers added jobs for the 41st straight month, nonfarm payroll employment remains lower than at the December 2007 start of the recession (see chart) — and well below what’s required for full employment. The unemployment rate fell to 7.4 percent, but as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated recently, the current unemployment rate “overstates the health of our labor markets.” In particular, the share of the population with a job remains stuck near levels at the depth of the recession.
Yes, the economy has been growing, but not fast enough to generate a robust jobs recovery that not only puts job seekers back to work more quickly but also convinces more people who would like a job to look for one.
The best news in the report may be for teachers, who lost tens of thousands of jobs over the course of the economic downturn. Today’s report indicates that local governments hired over 10,000 people in the education sector, offsetting 4,000 other local government job losses. Together, local government gains offset modest losses at the state (-3,000) and federal (-1,000) levels. Perhaps the worst news, though, is that hourly earnings fell — slightly. Down 0.1 percent.
The report weakens the case that the Federal Reserve should begin tapering the support its been providing to the economy for several months — but the top line drop in unemployment rate significantly masks that fact.
A lot of professional forecasters who’d been looking at other aspects of the data anticipated a better number than this. And perhaps they’ll be vindicated when revisions are in. These numbers really do move quite a bit as more information becomes available. But, of course surprises, on the downside are possible as well as surprises on the upside. The fact that this happens is a reminder of how insane it is that we’ve had months of speculation about when the Federal Reserve is going to start “tapering” its quantitative easing bond purchases.
Bill McBride refers to the above chart:
This shows the depth of the recent employment recession – worse than any other post-war recession – and the relatively slow recovery due to the lingering effects of the housing bust and financial crisis.
He follows up with a comprehensive review of the new report here.
Nate Cohn sees signs that “the next Republican nominee is screwed”:
[A] new Pew Research survey suggests that Republican presidential candidates won’t find it easy to move toward the center. The poll shows that Republicans recognize the need for change—with 59 percent even suggesting they need to change on the issues. But when it comes to the specifics, most Republicans support maintaining the party’s current positions or even moving further to the right. When asked about the party’s current stance on gay marriage, immigration, government spending, abortion, and guns, at least 60 percent of Republicans said they thought the party was about right or too moderate.
Desire for change was greatest, if still very limited, on cultural conservative issues. On gay marriage, 31 percent of Republicans said they wanted the party to moderate. But 27 percent thought the party wasn’t conservative enough (do they want a return to sodomy laws?) and another 33 percent were satisfied with the party’s current stance. … On immigration, where the party’s current position is potentially less clear to voters, the Republican rank-and-file isn’t itching to get behind a compromise. 17 percent support moving to the left on immigration, compared to 36 percent who want the party to get more conservative.
In a later post, on why Rubio’s 2016 chances are “alive and well” despite his stumbles on immigration, Cohn outlines the kind of Republican that wins nominations:
Yeah, you’d rather be a Tea Party candidate than a dreaded moderate, but the optimum Republican presidential candidate is a mainline conservative—someone who’s conservative enough for the Tea Party, doesn’t scare away the establishment, and doesn’t alienate either the religious or business wing of the party. From there, the candidate either needs to build a critical mass of support within the party (the so-called invisible primary), or go out on the ground and convince voters in Iowa or New Hampshire (while hoping that no other candidate wins the invisible primary). …
[F]or the moment, there isn’t another prominent, active Republican candidate with broad appeal throughout the party. For now, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are best positioned to run as factional candidates. Perhaps one or all will broaden their appeal, especially Christie. They have time, but it hasn’t happened yet. Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan would have broad appeal, but it’s unclear whether they’ll run. Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Scott Walker, and Rob Portman could all run mainline campaigns, but they won’t win the invisible primary and their national electoral appeal is unproven, even compared to Rubio.
A quick review of those Pew numbers on the likely candidates:
Paul Ryan led in favorability among all Republicans, with a 65% favorable rating. Eighty-one percent of Tea Partiers gave that response. Rand Paul was 10 points behind Ryan in favorability among all Republicans. Seventy percent of Tea Party Republicans liked him. Marco Rubio had a 50% favorable rating among all Republicans and Chris Christie a 47% rating. Tea Party Republicans were much higher on Rubio (59%) than they were on Christie (47%). At this point, 53% of Republicans had no opinion of Ted Cruz. Of those who had an opinion, 33% had a favorable view of him and 13% an unfavorable view.
The Dish 