Social Issues

Social Policy Wonks, welcome! Discuss the mechanics, research, philosophies, laws, principles and feasibility of today's social issues.

Welcome to Social Issues!

Fair game includes divorce & marriage, gender issues, race issues, sexual orientation issues, reproductive rights, quality of life, ageism, welfare reform, personal liberties, domestic violence and ubiquitous complaints against cell phone users and dog owners … you name it.

Please read the Mote Rules of Engagement, they apply. Outbreaks of partisan politics or religious evangelizing will be moved to their appropriate location.

Please feel free to email me with suggestions for links in the butter bar.

2. vw - 3/28/2001 12:13:15 PM

Current topics that caught my eye:

What's wrong with our justice system? US prison population nears two million We have 25% of the world's prisoners but we're only 5% of the world's population.

Remember crack babies? Apparently our public concern and millions of dollars were misspent on an "epidemic" that never existed. How much of what the public pushes for in social policy is based on misinformation or downright confusion? Have we become a nation of Social Issue hand-wringers ready to fund the Tragedy de Jour?

3. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 12:29:06 PM

This looks like it will fly, vw!

4. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 12:29:37 PM

Hi vw!

I live in a suburb of N. Dallas and teach 11th grade US History and World History. Here in Texas (even in North Texas) we have a large Hispanic population. At the school that I teach, approximately 65% of the students are Hispanic, most second or third generation. One of the biggest problems we have with these students, aside from teenage pregnancy, is gang involvement. Although this particular school has a reputation for being rough on crime, signs of gang involvement still exist.

Has there been any developments in the study of gangs that you're aware of? I have some kids who are at such an impressionable stage in their lives. They're wavering between entering the gangs because their homies are already in them , and wondering what they should do instead. I try and encourage them NOT to enter gangs, but the social pressure is so high to follow the others.

Any comments, suggestions?

5. CalGal - 3/28/2001 12:38:18 PM

Have we become a nation of Social Issue hand-wringers ready to fund the Tragedy de Jour?


Well, yes. Absolutely.

Another link off the one you provided: Researchers in North Carolina are wringing their hands because many new mothers who are abused regularly take their kids to the doctor, even if they themselves don't get treatment. Thus, pediatricians are now going to be looped into the task of babysitting women who don't want to accept responsibility for their lives.

Where will it end? (wringing hands and gnashing teeth)

It reminds me of Ase, being asked DV questions while giving birth. Women have to tolerate that intrusion because we all need to pretend that victims are just a question away from saying, "Why yes, my husband beats the shit out of me--thanks for asking."

6. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 12:40:19 PM

I saw an article in this weekend's paper about crowds in San Francisco motivating for dogs to run without leashes an uban federal park there, though children and the elderly may be afraid to use the parks as a consequence. Evidently, many dog owners already ignore leash laws in the park and let their dogs run. I think that San Fran. is also the city in which a young woman was mauled to death by two particularly vicious dogs.

Then this weekend as I was moving my parents to their new house a big german shepard bounded over from their back yard neighbors. He's a friendly fellow, except with my mother who's terrified of German Shepards because she was attacked by a neighbor's back in the 60's. Already, it looks like they may either be in for a run-in with new neighbors or my mom will be trapped in the house while their dog runs lose.

As a dog owner myself, I keep my two beasts fenced or leashed. What is it with dog owners who seem to feel that dogs' rights outweigh the right of people to enjoy their own yards and public spaces without fear of canines?

7. christipeters - 3/28/2001 12:52:30 PM

bubba - grrrrr! that bothers me, too. Your dog has a right to run loose in a residential neighborhood? I think NOT.

What about your dog's right to be kept safe from cars, other dogs, and nuts with poison?

Your dog's rights are trumped by the rights of the people in the area to not be jumped on, licked, knocked down, bitten, or even to simply keep their lawns and gardens intact!

Can your parents build a fence to keep the dog OUT of their place at least?

8. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 12:54:48 PM

I don't know but we are having the same problem in our neighborhood, Bubbaette. Some of you might recall I posted last year about our across-the-street neighbor who let his Rottweiler run loose and it attacked and nearly killed the little dog next door to me. Our village police and court system handled it and the guy had to get rid of his Rotty or put up a 10 foot fence all around his yard and post a million dollar insurance bond. Of course, this layabout guy opted for giving the dog away and letting someone else deal with it in their neighborhood.

Now he has a German Shepard who just this week got loose and went after a lady a few doors down.

9. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 12:58:27 PM

I like the idea of holding these people criminally liable for the actions of their dogs.

The neighbors whose german shepard attacked my mom had trained their dog to be vicious. If their dog attacks someone, the owners should be charged with assault and battery.

10. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:01:16 PM

Bubba,

My husband has a 25 lb. chihuahua, her name is Taffy. He lets her run loose, but her weight is intimidating to some, believe it or not. She'll come barreling around a corner looking for someone to love, and it scares some people. Unfortunately, it's when she's in the presence of others that she poops in someone else's yard. THAT'S when I'm wanting her on a leash.

Imagine the Taco Bell dog, but enormously huge.

11. christipeters - 3/28/2001 1:07:18 PM

I think in most cities people ARE held responsible for the actions of their dogs. Of course, it's the dogs who end up paying, usually by being put down -either as vicious, or because they've been taken away from the irresponsible owners and no new home is found. I know that if a dog attacks or bites a person, the owner is liable for medical bills and dammages.

I would agree with the assault and battery idea only if it was trained to attack and/or their was negligence involved. One of our dogs, a German Shepherd, once bit a kid. This kid and his friend had been teasing and throwing things at our fenced-in dog for a couple of weeks. The kids' parents and my husband and myself had all spoken to/yelled at the kids over it. One day, when they were teasing our dog they came too close to the fence and she nipped one of them. (4' fence the could have jumped out of, but had been trained to stay in the yard and would stay even if the gate was open.) The parents of the bitten kid simply verified with us that our dog had all her vaccinations and then told the kid he deserved what he got.

My point being that some attacks are provoked. I don't think those don't call for assault and battery charges.

12. christipeters - 3/28/2001 1:08:56 PM

I have tiny dogs now, but most of my life I have had dogs of 55 lbs or larger (usually larger).

Big or small, I always always always have my dogs fenced or leashed.

13. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 1:29:19 PM

There's a difference between tormenting a dog who's enclosed on the owner's property and a dog that's running loose. I don't know that assault charges would always be proper -- say in the instance of a little old lady who suffers a broken hip when knocked down by an overly affectionate dog.

The problems with letting it be because dog owners are financially responsible if their dog injures someone are:

1. It does no good to sue someone for injuries if they have no funds to make good.
2. In many cases the damages are paid by homeowners insurance which gives the owner little or no incentive to control the animal if it doesn't touch their own pocket book.

I also think that there's an attitude on the part of some dog owners -- "screw the law -- my dog needs to run and you're just a wimp. It's not the dogs that are fenced in on their owners property that are the problem. Instead, it's the owners who take their dogs out and let them off the leash thinking there's no harm done.

14. CalGal - 3/28/2001 1:30:34 PM

I think it is arguable that dogs are no longer a viable pet for many urban areas.

15. Shannon - 3/28/2001 1:34:30 PM

Another aspect to the dog issue: People who DO NOT LISTEN when you tell them not to pet your dog. I have an extremely skittish dog. I highly doubt she'd ever bite anyone, but many skittish dogs will. It's unbelieveably stupid to approach or try to pet a dog when the owner has said "She doesn't like strangers. Just leave her alone."

At the very least, it terrifies the poor animal.

Weird aside: My daughter was very scared of small dogs for a while. We have a large dog--GS mix, about 60 pounds. She was fine with big dogs, but she burst into tears at my aunt's Lhasa Apso (sp?).

16. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 1:35:34 PM

I heard on the news those 2 who owned the dogs which attacked and killed the woman in San Francisco are going to be charged with...something serious, I can't remember what. I'll check my paper...

17. Shannon - 3/28/2001 1:40:31 PM

Murder and manslaughter. From Yahoo:

Knoller, 45, who was present at the time of the attack, was charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and keeping a mischievous dog that caused a person's death. Noel, 59, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and keeping a mischievous dog.

I didn't know you could be charged with both murder and manslaughter. I thought it was one or the other.

18. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 1:42:20 PM

Shannon,

I always make my 80 lb chow chow sit for strangers. He's extremely passive and disinterested in others, but I always take this precaution in case something snaps. My little dog is the weird one, her I usually try to discourage others from petting.

My husband's chihuahua will love anyone, regardless of size.

19. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 1:44:37 PM

My husband's dog is extremely unfriendly to other dogs. He is always leashed, but has been in a lot of fights because someone decided to let their dog off the leash.

20. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 1:46:17 PM

keeping a mischievous dog.

Hey, I have a mischievous dog...he smiles at people and melts their hearts. A dog which mauls and kills a person is NOT mischievous, it's predatory. That breed of dog had been bred to kill and those people knew it.

What strange language in the law...

21. Laura C - 3/28/2001 1:51:00 PM

I think it is arguable that dogs are no longer a viable pet for many urban areas.

The growth of doggie daycare, doggie bakeries and Discovery Zone-like indoor doggie playgrounds has amused me greatly. One place near my last apartment couldn't make it as a nursery school, closed for six months, and reopened for dogs with a bit of remodeling, to great success.

22. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 1:51:59 PM

That is bizarre.

23. CalGal - 3/28/2001 1:53:39 PM

hahahahahah!

That's cool. But yes, that's the sort of thing you'd need. Dogs are an expense, not a pet. That's one reason I won't have one--well, that and the fact that I hate pets.

24. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 1:56:42 PM

I like pets, I just don't like dogs. They are so high maintenance.

25. bubbaette - 3/28/2001 1:56:47 PM

Jen

My dog is pretty small -- between 25 and 30 pounds, and I always make her sit and then kneel beside her when people (especially children) approach. I think this makes the dog feel safer. Small dogs tend to be leery of children because they're not always gentle, may yell, and often move erratically. I ask the children who want to pet her to speak in small voices and to pet her gently. Though Callie has never snapped at anyone, she has barked at and frightened a toddler who was treating her roughly.

My dog hile on a leash was attacked by a pit bull who was running along the beach trailing a leash behind her. Mike jumped into the fray, picked up the Pit by the collar and leash, swung the dog around and then slammed it into the sand. The Pit's idiot owner who was walking along behind apologized half-heartedly and evidently thought that because the dog was on a leash, they were ok. I would have like to have choked the owner for letting her little menace run loose. Dogs on a leash feel very much threatened by dogs running loose because the leashed dog doesn't have the range of motion or freedom to protect itself if attacked.

26. christipeters - 3/28/2001 1:57:25 PM

I think it is arguable that dogs are no longer a viable pet for many urban areas.

I disagree. There are dogs being specifically bred for urban areas which are tiny and perfectly happy never leaving the average-sized apartment. The problem is not the dogs. It is the irresponsible behavior of some dog owners. Good laws, enforced firmly, could take care of the irresponsible owners and let the responsible ones continue to enjoy their pets.

27. CalGal - 3/28/2001 2:00:57 PM

There are dogs being specifically bred for urban areas which are tiny and perfectly happy never leaving the average-sized apartment.

In short, dogs specially bred to become cats are fine. No problem. But that makes them functionally cats.

But real dogs are a different issue. I think it's arguable that it does them no good to live in an urban environment anymore, and even in the suburbs the investment and time it takes to keep a dog is a lot more than many people have time for in their busy lives.

28. christipeters - 3/28/2001 2:01:38 PM

Dog owners should be held absolutely finanacially liable for any and all damage done by their dogs. (this is the way it is in many places).

Dog owners should be held criminally liable for any and all damage done by their dogs if it is the result of their negligence (as in not fenced, leashed, etc), abuse, neglect, or training for attack/viciousness.

29. christipeters - 3/28/2001 2:03:36 PM

CalGal - actually it doesn't make them functionally cats. I keep both cats and dogs because they offer different interactions and I want both. A small dog still acts like a dog. It is just small enough that an apartment is a big territory to it.

30. Laura C - 3/28/2001 2:05:14 PM

What breeds are those, Christi? I like dogs but it will be a long time before we have enough space for Labs or the other breeds I grew up around.

31. CalGal - 3/28/2001 2:07:25 PM

Christi,

I dunno. A dog that doesn't need to go outside sounds like a cat. I realize he'll still bark instead of mew.

32. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 2:13:02 PM

the investment and time it takes to keep a dog is a lot more than many people have time for in their busy lives.

Well, that could be said of children, too.

I think if you're too busy to have a dog, then both you and the dog will be better off if you pass on having one.

But dogs are great companions and aren't that expensive...food, shots, a short course in training, and dog tags. Of course, if they become ill, they cost more but averaged out over 12 to 16 years, they are a bargain and a delight...or can be.

33. CalGal - 3/28/2001 2:16:22 PM

Well, that could be said of children, too.


And it is, regularly.

I'm not trying to talk people out of dogs. I'm just making an observation about dogs as pets in general. It would be fairly easy to pass laws that make owning a dog too onerous.

For example, all of you owners who support holding owners legally responsible: suppose it then became normal for dog owners to be sued, to have to have special insurance, or for homeowner's insurance property to stop covering dogs. Would you still be positive that this sort of thing could never happen to you?

And that's just one example.

34. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 2:21:15 PM

I have met pet owners who are aghast when a family gives away a pet when they have a new baby. I have never understood this mentatlity.

35. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 2:21:28 PM

Would you still be positive that this sort of thing could never happen to you?

I didn't notice any of us said that...I am quite sure it could happen to me. I have an older dog and he gets cranky around kids. If he bites a child, I feel I'm liable for him...a responsible owner naturally would live up to that reponsibility.

36. Shannon - 3/28/2001 2:26:34 PM

Actually, we got a discount on our homeowner's insurance for having a dog. Very amusing considering how useless she is as protection.

37. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 2:30:02 PM

Shannon:

I have to chuckle when I see my dog snarling and barking at the mailman everyday...safely behind the picture window. If the mailman said BOO!! to Klaus, he'd run shrieking to the back of the house.

38. CalGal - 3/28/2001 2:34:22 PM

I have met pet owners who are aghast when a family gives away a pet when they have a new baby.

I know. I always say that people who treat their pets like children just can't be parents. If they are, then I worry about their kids. (g)

I didn't notice any of us said that

I didn't say you did. However, over time, this increases the cost and risk of having a dog at all. If further laws enforce dog owner liability and limit dog behavior, I think it's quite possible that it will continue to discourage dog ownership. I believe that it already has dropped over hte years, hasn't it?

39. Shannon - 3/28/2001 2:35:15 PM

That's about like Thelma. She barks like mad if anyone is outside the door, but if they come in, she retreats behind a large furniture item.

She probably does sound intimidating, anyway.

40. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 2:36:34 PM

I believe that it already has dropped over hte years, hasn't it?

Just from personal observation, I'd say no...

41. JudithAtHome - 3/28/2001 2:38:52 PM

Shannon:

I think you get the insurance break because studies show if a thief hears a dog inside, they will be less likely to try your house. Lucky for us if they don't...they'd see what a sham our viscious beasts really are!:-)

42. christipeters - 3/28/2001 2:40:58 PM

CalGal - Many people think cats need to go outside and keeping them in is cruel. However, with the advent of clumping kitty litter with good odor control conquering the unpleasant smells of the old clay kitty litter, many people are now comfortable keeping cats exclusively indoors and finding out that the cats not only adjust, but live longer.

People have been "paper-training" dogs for almost as long as there have been cheap papers. However, it was messy and inconvenient to maintain that method of waste training throughout the dog's life. So, paper training was just a way-station on the road to housebreaking a dog to go outside to defecate and urinate. Now the same technology that gave us super-absorbant disposable diapers has given us disposable doggy potty pads. So the dog is "paper trained", not on paper, but on these pads that will absorb the urine, neutralize (at least somewhat) the smell of urine and feces and can be tossed out like diapers. (I make no comment on the environmental effects of diaper and potty pad waste)

This is impractical for large dogs, but I know some people with a Pomeranian who live in a high-rise apartment building who have never taken their dog outside. They say it's not uncommon.

It has nothing to do with a dog "being like a cat" and everything to do with technology developed by people to make the artificial (to the animal) environment we put our pets in comfortable and convenient for people.

43. Shannon - 3/28/2001 2:43:57 PM

I'd give my pets away in a heartbeat if there was an actual problem with them and my kids. But I admit to being a bit baffled and sometimes mildly appalled at people who get rid of their pets before their children are even born.

44. christipeters - 3/28/2001 2:50:36 PM

LauraC - the small and toy breeds which are being bred smaller and smaller. For example, Pomeranians used to be between 7 and 12 pounds. Now they are between 4 and 7 pounds.

I had bird dogs ( Gordon and English Setters, German Shorthairs, Springer Spanials, and Brittany Spanials), medium to large mutts, and German Shepherds before I got my present two Poms. In fact, I would not have chosen these dogs. They were my daughter's choice. However, I have not had any of the problems I anticipated (yappiness and snappishness).

More and more I am beginning to think a large part of the nasty reputation that tiny dogs get is due to the type of people who used to be the majority choosing these dogs and how they train (or didn't) the dogs. I trained this pair the same way I did my previous dogs with the same results.

The only thing I would call a "problem" is that an animal this tiny is more easily injured. Rose's skull is about the size of a golf ball. Her muzzle the length of the last part of my thumb. Her legs are about the thickness of my forefinger. Jewel is even smaller. So, when my daughter accidentally dropped Jewel, it broke her leg. That's not something that would happen with a Lab or a 50 lb mutt.

45. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 2:51:39 PM

Our cat and dog haven't had anywhere near the level of attention they were used to pre-baby.

46. christipeters - 3/28/2001 3:00:49 PM

"For example, all of you owners who support holding owners legally responsible: suppose it then became normal for dog owners to be sued, to have to have special insurance, or for homeowner's insurance property to stop covering dogs. Would you still be positive that this sort of thing could never happen to you?"

If you ahd dogs, you might know that that is/has been happening. I don't see why the homeowner's insurance shouldn't cover dogs, but it's reasonable that having dogs would affect the cost of homeowner's insurance. I think in many places it does. Certainly, there are and will continue to be more lawsuits over damages and/or injuries done by pets.

We got our first German Shepherd in 1981. We were going to put up a "Beware of Dog" sign, not because the dog was in any way vicious, but to keep people out of our yard. A lawyer advised us not to. He said that in the 50s and 60s and earlier, a "Beware of Dog" sign was considered "fair warning" and if there was a lawsuit over a bite happening on a property so posted, the courts pretty much ruled it was the "victim's" fault for ignoring the warning. Now (1981) there have been so many lawsuits over dog bites and such a victim mentality, that a "Beware of Dog" sign is considered by the courts to be freely admitting that you are knowingly keeping a vicious dog.

I think that is still, if not more, true today.

I already have special health insurance for my dogs and cats. Why not liability insurance, too?

47. christipeters - 3/28/2001 3:06:20 PM

I did give away a cat after my daughter was born. The dogs were fine. In fact, my daughter learned to walk with her fists buried in the hair of the German Shepherd rather than hanging on to furniture. The other cat was fine, too. However, the one cat, an absolutely gorgeous Turkish Angora that I loved dearly, was still slinking around the edges of any room the baby was in snarling away a month after my daughter was born. I figured a month was more than enough time to adjust and got rid of the cat.

I mean, I loved that cat, but no where near as much as loved my daughter fergodsakes!

48. CalGal - 3/28/2001 3:08:42 PM

Christi,

I thought some of that was in effect; thanks for bringing me up to date. But dog ownership has declined, apparently--I've just been reading up--and I imagine that part of it is due to liability concerns. I'm sure that warding off anti-dog legislation is a big part of pet lobbies, too.

49. vw - 3/28/2001 3:41:23 PM

I think the dog question is just one facet of a much larger social issue that also includes complaints about cell phone users, people with kids, SUV drivers, etc.

I have noticed a general intolerance among Americans. They are annoyed at a legion of little actions by others that are best placed in the “Mind my own business and walk on” category.

My kid has the right to be safe everywhere she goes.

Why should anyone else’s feelings inconvenience me to the point of having to purchase a leash for my dog?

I don’t own a cell phone so I should never have to listen to one ring. Even in completely public areas like parks or streets.

There seems to be a demand that the comforts, rights or privacies we once held in the sanctity of our own homes now must be extended to the public sphere. Somehow rights have come to mean that everyone else should accommodate the wishes and preferences of individuals rather than prevent actions against the liberties of the community as a whole.

And I find myself think over and over again that part of the equation has been lost in the demand for entitlement; that the other side of the “rights” coin is responsibility. Owning a dog is a right that bears the responsibility of controlling the animal. Having a child is a right that bears the responsibility of providing for and protecting that child. Being able to walk the public streets as a free citizen bears the responsibility of tolerating the actions of other citizens exercising the same right.

I think we’ve gone rights-mad. We attribute rights to everything and in that mad dash to do so trod over very basic liberties like self-determination.

Whew! I feel better now.

50. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 3:43:51 PM

Bubba,

I agree with you, I think it is terrible when a pet owner allows their leashed animal to attack others!

I was attacked by a Pit Bull when I was 11, thank God I got away with a scar on my lip that is invisible now. The owner didn't have it on a leash and it looked at me, closed it's mouth and charged. It happened so quickly that all I could do was try and push the animal off of me. It was literally standing on me while taking a chomp out of my face. The owner shouted "Brandy, stop it!" and then slugged it with a large stick/pole (maybe a baseball bat?). I was in tears, and bleeding, and the woman basically apologized and left. The dog wimpered, from being hit by its owner, and they disappeared.

51. christipeters - 3/28/2001 3:47:22 PM

vw -

applause! applause!

52. christipeters - 3/28/2001 3:58:03 PM

CalGal -

I'm not surprised that dog ownership is declining. I think it has to do with the difference in dependence between a dog and a cat. Cats really are less trouble if you go away for the weekend than a dog. With a cat, you can make sure the litterbox is clean, leave an automatic waterer and automatic feeder, and their fine. Our cats definitely let us know that they have missed us when we are gone, but not like a dog.

While cats, sans humans, band into cooperative related female groups, they are less of a pack animal than dogs. In addition, humans have used the pack instincts in dogs to breed 'companion dogs' that are very psychologically dependent on their human 'pack'.

Pets, in general, put a 'crimp' on a mobile lifestyle.

Every time we take a trip, I have to make special arrangements for the care of my pets. Now, I have been lucky enough to find a responsible honest college student who moves in and both house and pet sits for $20/day. That's a bargain compared to kennel costs and has the added bonus of better security for the house, too. However, she'll eventually graduate and either move away or be too busy with her career to continue house/pet sitting.

When you move, too, having pets is one more added component to the hassle. Some of us think it's worth it. (Obviously, I do.) So, I wouldn't be surprised that pet ownership, in general, is declining, just declining more slowly for the lower maintenance pets.

53. christipeters - 3/28/2001 4:02:25 PM

Oh, I forgot to mention - For apartment dwellers, there's the added expenses of pet deposits when you move in and paying for pet damage and/or stains (if there are any) when you move. That's another big consideration for some folks. When we first moved here, the pet deposits ranged from $150 to $600 per pet, depending on both how fnacy tha apartment complex was and how much the complex owner/manager liked/disliked pets.

54. Ronski - 3/28/2001 4:33:20 PM

Speaking of kitties, I recently sent away for "Soft Paws," which cover their nails for up to six weeks. I also bought a professional cat nail-clipper from them (for considerably less), and lo and behold, with a little determination and tough love I have virtually ended the shredding of furniture and scratching of wood surfaces just with the manicures. I may not even bother with the nail covers. We'll see. But I wish I had done this sooner. The clippers make all the difference. They fit around the nail nicely.

Feel free to move this post to H&G, if it fits better there.

55. Erin R. - 3/28/2001 4:36:24 PM

Too late for my cat--she's been declawed.

56. CalGal - 3/28/2001 4:54:16 PM

I think we’ve gone rights-mad. We attribute rights to everything and in that mad dash to do so trod over very basic liberties like self-determination.

Have you read about the trend away from juries for lawsuits? I wonder if the pendulum is finally swinging back the other way. There are a lot of big cases where a jury has been miffed at the judge's overturning or limiting their verdict, and more and more states are limiting the types of cases that can use juries.

As I'm sure you know, the legality of mandatory arbitration has also been upheld.

Given that a lot of these "rights" came about because of generous juries, it is interesting to wonder where we might go from here.

57. christipeters - 3/28/2001 5:26:40 PM

No doubt the pendulum will swing a bit too far the other way. Then swing again. Then, maybe in a few generations or so, we might hit a good balance that protects people's rights and holds them to their responsibilities.

(ok, so I'm an optimist)

58. Jamie R - 3/28/2001 5:42:48 PM

I'm mildly dog-phobic, and unfortunately live in a complex where it's not uncommon for big dogs to run loose. Nothing like taking out the trash and being surprised by a Rottweiller the size of a small horse.

I'm considering getting some kind of anti-dog device (one of the sprays or sound devices) not because I rationally think I need it, but because I think it might take some of the edge off my phobia.

59. thoughtful - 3/28/2001 5:44:51 PM

FYI, while on vacation we had the pet patrol people in for our cat -- $14/day and he checks the house to make sure the heat is on, brings in the newspaper and mail and feeds the cat and cleans the cat box....considering my cat goes nuts when anywhere but home I figure this is a great bargain.

60. thoughtful - 3/28/2001 5:51:01 PM

My brother was attacked by 3 dogs when he was 9 and delivering newspapers in our neighborhood. The dogs were kept behind a high fence which they managed to jump. He tried protecting himself with his bicycle, but they ran around it and were literally trying to tear him to shreds pulling different parts of him in opposite directions. Fortunately he suffered only a few bites as it was winter and he had a heavy coat and boots on and even more fortunately remains a dog lover to this day.

61. christipeters - 3/28/2001 5:57:25 PM

thoughtful - how terrible! I hope there were some consequences for the dogs and their owner.

When I was growing up, our city had a "two bite rule". The first time a dog bit someone, the circumstances were looked at and a decision made if the bite was provoked or if there were extenuating circumstances to let the dog off the hook. If no extenuating circumstance were found, the dog was euthanized. The second time a dog bit someone, it was euthanized regardless of the circumstances.

Could be harsh in some cases, but much as I love dogs, people have priority AFAIC.

62. vw - 3/28/2001 8:49:00 PM

Have you read about the trend away from juries for lawsuits?

No, I've missed that ... I need to poke around.

Anecdotally, my two experiences as a jury member have left me with the sense that 85% of the US population are utter morons. I was foreperson on a civil suit where our own decision was how much money the plaintiff was to receive (liability had already been settled but not the award). I actually found myself having to say to Juror #3 that her dislike of the plaintiff’s wife because of her choice in clothes was not going to be considered during our deliberation.

I am getting to be an old crank.

63. CalGal - 3/28/2001 8:53:48 PM

It was in the NY Times, I think. Maybe the Post. Probably within the past two weeks, so if you check soon you might be able to find it. I'll look later, if I have time.

Did you see that post I made earlier about some people now saying that pediatricians should start to ask about DV?

64. joezan - 3/28/2001 10:18:30 PM

Dogshit's a social issue?

What did I miss?

65. vw - 3/29/2001 8:49:55 AM

Did you see that post I made earlier about some people now saying that pediatricians should start to ask about DV?

Yeah, I tracked it down to the JAMA report.

I have to admit, I don't know what to say about this study. I'm kind of shocked that in a sample of 2648 women that 6.1% were abused (defined in the study as being pushed, hit, slapped, kicked, or physically hurt in some other way) during the preganancy. Is my math wrong or is that 161 women who reported physical abuse during their pregnancy?

I want to find time to go back and look at the sampling pool to see if it was from the general population or if it was women already receiving some kind of Infant at Risk support. They did mention an oversampling of women with low-birth-weight infants.

To the point, I'm not so sure that if this is a problem that making pediatricians into DV investigators is the way to go. There own data shows a decrease in the prevelance of abuse from pre-preganacy (6.9%) to during the preganancy (6.1%) to postpartum (3.2%). Why focus the attention at the lowest prevelance point? Doesn't it make more sense to have OB/GYNs take a look at this issue?

66. christipeters - 3/29/2001 9:47:11 AM

"Doesn't it make more sense to have OB/GYNs take a look at this issue?"

It makes sense to me. I have heard that in some DV situations, the violence occurs when there is an increase in stress, either within the relationship or totally unconnected - such as problems at work. Pregnancy, even planned and happy pregnancy, ceratinly adds stress.

67. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 11:32:31 AM

Anecdotally, the women I knew who were in abusive marriages stated that the abuse started during pregnancy. One in particular stated the abuser's rationale was that he didn't want children. She speculated that she had fewer options once pregnant since she was now responsible for a child she felt that leaving her husband was more difficult and costly.

68. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 11:35:21 AM

Maybe she should've thought of that before conceiving the child...do women still buy into that idea that a child will improve a wretched marriage where the husband is abusive, disinterested, intolerant and more?

69. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 11:37:31 AM

Judith

True -- the few women I know that were in abusive marriages got married very young.

70. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 11:49:37 AM

We are seeing the disintegration of our friends 20+ years marriage and it isn't pretty. He has become very verbally abusive to the point he is doing it in front of us and in public. They have 3 children, one in first year of college and 2 about to graduate high school. He is mid 40s and she is younger. He is very cruel in the things he says to her...

They are, in all seriousness, thinking of buying a bigger house, one of those newly built McMansions...I finally had to say something; it is ludicrous to think going into debt will improve this downward spiral in their relationship.

71. CalGal - 3/29/2001 12:51:17 PM

I've read before that there is a correlation between onset of abuse and first pregnancy. However, keep in mind that the woman has already been tolerating a great deal of very weird behavior by this point. He's already incredibly jealous, controlling, obsessive about what she wears and how she looks, demanding, and so on.

So if she tolerated all of that already and didn't really see much wrong with it, I am always leery of then trusting her when she says "the hitting started when I got pregnant." Maybe it was just the really bad hitting.

In any event, I think Donald Dutton had an interesting theory on why things escalated in pregnancy. I'll see if I can find his book at home.

72. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 1:14:11 PM

However, keep in mind that the woman has already been tolerating a great deal of very weird behavior by this point. He's already incredibly jealous, controlling, obsessive about what she wears and how she looks, demanding, and so on.

That was certainly true in the instance of my friend. It's also true that her female friends pointed this out to her before her pregnancy but we "just didn't understand him".

73. CalGal - 3/29/2001 1:16:54 PM

That's why I think much more should be done in profiling battered women. It does society and them a disservice to pretend that they're just chirpy normal people until this mean man comes along and fools her into tolerating abuse.

74. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 1:18:21 PM

On the other hand, bad judgment on her part in choosing a mate doesn't mean that she "deserves" battering.

75. CalGal - 3/29/2001 1:22:17 PM

"Deserves" has nothing to do with it. Rather, it's worth considering that the mate makes her very happy, with the hitting just this thing she'd wish he'd stop.

76. CalGal - 3/29/2001 1:22:44 PM

Well, "very happy" was sarcastic--rather, the behavior fills a need.

77. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 1:31:17 PM

I don't know that my friend had a "need" to be battered, either. She was smart enough to separate after the second or third incident, realizing that he wasn't going to change and the situation should not be tolerated. Admittedly the guy practiced obsessive behavior and verbal abuse before and more frequently than physical abuse.

78. CalGal - 3/29/2001 1:33:22 PM

No, the "need" is not the hitting. The hitting, to them, is an annoying side effect. But the other behavior is filling a need of some sort, clearly, or they'd dump the guys long before it got to the point of hitting.

79. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 1:39:40 PM

I can see that in some cases. I had a roommate in college who felt that her boyfriend "should" be jealous of her interactions with other men and that she "should" be jealous if she saw her boyfriend talking to another woman. I thought that was a pretty fucked up attitude at the time and told her so. I saw her a few years ago and she seems to have outgrown it.

But I do believe that some people are junkies for strong emotion -- whether negative or positive --and instigate situations where they get that kind of stimulation.

80. CalGal - 3/29/2001 1:46:08 PM

I think there are different "profiles". There is the woman who is reassured--not even so much by the jealousy, as by the feeling that this person won't leave. Then there are narcissists, who enjoy all the horrified emotional sobbing and presents they get after the hitting. Then there are those who are actually giving as good as they get--it's more of a mutually aggressive couple banging away at each other, with no real control issues.

There may be more. But it's very difficult to suggest that battered women are dysfunctional before they enter the relationship without causing a lot of fuss. No one wants to hear of that possibility.

I think that society spends too much time and effort "supporting" women and trying to coax them into leaving. I would be happier if the dynamic were to expect them to leave, and tell them that if they don't they are every bit as responsible for the damage to their kids as the abuser is.

81. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 2:03:50 PM

it's very difficult to suggest that battered women are dysfunctional before they enter the relationship without causing a lot of fuss.

I don't think that every woman who has been beaten is necessarily dysfunctional --particularly younger women who have little experience. Just like not every man who has ever hit a woman is a batterer. But those who STAY in those kinds of relationships or seek out another of the same type do have problems.

82. CalGal - 3/29/2001 2:05:54 PM

Oh, sure. I'm only talking of battering relationships.

That's one of the things that pisses me off: the egregious misuse of statistics in the DV debate. They cite all the cases of partner caused injuries in the hospital. But that's completely unrelated to how much DV there might be.

83. bubbaette - 3/29/2001 2:10:53 PM

I've become increasingly skeptical of all statistics used in support of political causes. During the empircal analysis classes I had while working on my MPA, we always had the beginning of the class period devoted to pointing out the lies damned lies and statistics from our local paper and USA Today.

84. CalGal - 3/29/2001 2:14:16 PM

I've become increasingly skeptical of all statistics used in support of political causes.

Me, too. But that's because so many of them trumpet correlation as if it is causality.

There is very little true discourse about social problems. Whether it's abortion, DV, racism, crime--everyone pushes their pet numbers. And yet it's so rare that those numbers have jackshit to do with anything.

85. CalGal - 3/29/2001 2:14:45 PM

..or is it causation? Cause? I've only had three hours sleep the last two nights; am getting groggy.

86. Åse - 3/29/2001 2:16:16 PM

Causation (usually).

Mantra goes: Correlation does not imply causation.

87. CalGal - 3/29/2001 2:17:45 PM

Yes, I say that a lot. I really am groggy.

88. Jamie R - 3/29/2001 10:18:36 PM

I'm very impressed. Gone are the days when I can function effectively on that little sleep.

89. vw - 3/30/2001 8:30:16 AM

Damn, I can't remember the name of the British woman who started one of first battered women shelters in Britain and wrote about her observations that a significant portion of the women she saw were what she called "violence-prone". She observed that there seemed to be two major groups of battered women, those who just needed help in getting out of the home and then they were gone for good and those who kept coming back over and over again with each situation an escalation in violence over the previous.

This woman went from being the darling of the British Feminist movement to having her essay on her observations “banned” by the organizations because they attributed a certain amount of culpability for being battered to the violence-prone women.

90. mgleason - 3/30/2001 8:58:45 AM

You must mean Erin Pizzey. The linked site features her book, Prone to Violence.

91. vw - 3/30/2001 9:00:19 AM

Bless you, mgleason! Damn you are the Saint of Needed Links aren't you (grin)!

92. mgleason - 3/30/2001 9:02:28 AM

I get around, Ma'am!

93. vw - 3/30/2001 9:25:13 AM

In those days it was too dangerous to attempt to share my discoveries in this field, because it was hard enough to gain public acceptance even for the idea that battered wives needed refuge. To discuss the notion that some women were actually prone to violence, and returned to violent relationships again and again, would only have served to alienate the public from these women who were in genuine need of help.

94. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 12:07:07 PM

My best friend in high school did the opposite (sort of). She came from a very violent household--the story I remember most is of the kids (there were nine of them) sitting around the dinner table when her dad jumped up for whatever reason and grabbed his pistol, flinging their mother to the floor with it loaded, cocked, and at her head. My friend thought she'd done great to marry a man who was simply an alcoholic--one of the worst I'd ever seen, who passed out on the couch daily to the point he wouldn't even get up from it to piss--while bragging to me that she'd leave him in a heartbeat if he ever put a hand on her.

95. vw - 3/30/2001 12:33:26 PM

Another school shooting - one dead.

96. CalGal - 3/30/2001 12:37:24 PM

The last two have been copycat.

Arky--yes, it's just a matter of needs being met.

97. vw - 3/30/2001 12:45:39 PM

This one seems to be of the personal vendetta sort rather than a spree. The shooter was a former student who shot a 17 yo in the parking lot.

That won't stop people from blaming bullying though (sigh).

98. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 12:51:10 PM

Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by needs, unless it's just a continuation of a bad homelife as "normal" for her. Her family life was really bad, but the thing that she felt was so horrible was the physical abuse of her mother. It never occurred to her that there's more to a good marriage than not being hit, and life with an alcoholic (actually she's one herself, but not to that degree) was perfectly fine and acceptable to her as long as it was unviolent. He also happened to be a spoiled, obnoxious control-freak, but that's another story.

Several ironies and sidenotes to the story: 1) her dad's now very docile and he and his wife are about as normal as any couple--to meet them you'd never know his history and 2) my friend's husband finally quit drinking, unfortunately not before he'd pickled his brain, but she's still at it, and 3) their two kids are completely ruined. The continuing cycles of domestic hell are really depressing.

99. arkymalarky - 3/30/2001 12:52:09 PM

I thought the one before that was a personal incident as well, where one girl shot another one? Or did she just do it randomly?

101. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:01:26 PM

what happened to the vw's centennial post?

102. vw - 3/30/2001 1:01:46 PM

You forgot the one in El Cajon, CA on
March 22, 2001, that one seemed to be a personal incident as well that just went wrong.

Police say 18-year-old Jason Hoffman went gunning for the vice principal at Granite Hills High School, a few miles from another shooting rampage a few weeks earlier. Hoffman missed the school official, but shotgun blasts wounded three students and two teachers before the gunman was hit twice by a policeman posted at the school, authorities said.

103. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:02:00 PM

Not fair!

104. vw - 3/30/2001 1:02:58 PM

what happened to the vw's centennial post?

Man! It evaporated? The God's are against me.

105. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:03:09 PM

103 refers to 101

106. bubbaette - 3/30/2001 1:04:18 PM

Hey! I posted twice straight into the ether. There's a ghost in the Social Issues thread.

107. vw - 3/30/2001 1:05:25 PM

Great, they gave me a defective thread! It didn't do that when I took it out for a test spin.

108. seadate - 3/30/2001 1:06:01 PM

vw,

I don't know about the Gods, but we are again made aware of the powers of our reigning Mote Pope.

109. vw - 3/30/2001 2:01:09 PM

Does the First Amendment Cover Threats Against Abortion Doctors? A federal appeals court reverses a landmark ruling against the purveyors of the anti-abortion 'Nuremberg Files' web site.

110. vw - 3/30/2001 2:03:25 PM

Here's a mirror site of the original Nuremberg Files site

112. vw - 3/30/2001 2:06:23 PM

??????

We didn't have a pace started to change from.

113. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 2:09:36 PM

Sorry, vw, I thought that the topic was the defective thread/disappearing post conspiracy.

114. JudithAtHome - 3/30/2001 2:09:45 PM

vw:

Jon is having issues with Indiana Jones in the Religion thread so he decided to take IJs question and place it here, where Jon has decided it belongs.

115. JudithAtHome - 3/30/2001 2:12:48 PM

From the site vw linked to....

The three-judge panel decided the now-infamous web site is, in fact, protected under the First Amendment because its language does not blatantly authorize or directly threaten violence.

And yet those listed on it continue to be "marked off" after they are murdered??

116. vw - 3/30/2001 2:20:27 PM

The latest deal is to encourage people to stand outside clinics and videotape everyone that enters or leaves the building and then post the video online.

Does anyone know what the laws are surrounding that kind of video distribution?

117. vw - 3/30/2001 2:27:56 PM

Thread Janitor Note: I deleted post 111 as it is now floating around in several threads. If some one is actually interested in discussion it, please reframe the question and post again.

118. JudithAtHome - 3/30/2001 2:33:10 PM

vw:

If you are filmed by a newscrew, they have to get you to sign a waiver before they can run the tape on the 6 o'clock news...I don't think these people videotaping "customers" at clinics know what sort of trouble they can get into with this disgusting idea.

119. mgleason - 3/30/2001 2:33:27 PM

The man suspected of killing NY obstetrician Dr Barnett Slepian has been arrested in France, as well as two persons accused of helping him in NY:

Extradition Sought in Abortion Case

120. vw - 3/30/2001 2:38:28 PM

Persuading France to release Kopp for extradition to this country may require waiving the possibility of the death penalty for him, Justice Department officials told The Buffalo News.

Man, that scorches my butt. Not that I am rabidly pro-death penalty, just that we have to put up with the frickin' French dictating our legal options as a nation.

121. vw - 3/30/2001 2:40:22 PM

If you are filmed by a news crew, they have to get you to sign a waiver

Yeah, that I knew, but I think that’s because the news station is a for-profit endeavor therefore they can’t “profit” by using your image without a release. I’m not sure of not-for-profit situations, which arguably this site would be.

122. JudithAtHome - 3/30/2001 2:41:39 PM

Why wouldn't this fall under "invasion of privacy" on those filmed?

123. vw - 3/30/2001 2:44:17 PM

I don't know, but IIRC, the site was using photos of MDs taken by private citizens on the street the last time around and I'm not sure if they got pinged for invasion of privacy on those either.

124. mgleason - 3/30/2001 2:45:22 PM

The clinics should begin dispensing Groucho Marx spectacles, with the attached nose and mustache. That would scorch the collective butts of the ahem, activists.

125. vw - 3/30/2001 2:46:25 PM

(grin) How about rubber G.W. Bush masks?

126. Shannon - 3/30/2001 2:50:48 PM

I just had to sign a release for my son to be videotaped by a TV news crew at school.

The wording wasn't specific to the TV station, though. It actually gave the school board authority to use his image, etc.

We have a local station run by a right-wing nut politician (this man has brought plastic fetuses to the legislature as visual aids for his rantings). When Operation Rescue was in town back in '92, of course all the media was out in force. The camera crew for this station was making a point of filming patients. I was doing clinic defense--we made posters attacking the TV station, and the patients hid behind those.

127. vw - 3/30/2001 2:58:39 PM

Yeah, but you know when a film crew is on the street taping a protest in front of the Capitol that it doesn't get release forms from everyone in the crowd so I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn

128. wonkers2 - 3/30/2001 3:49:25 PM

Seems to me that the 3-judge panel carried the 1st Amendment a bit far. I wonder how the judges would have reacted if their names, addresses and telephone numbers had been posted on a similar site. I would have limited the site to arguments, photos, etc., opposing abortion and prohibited them from publishing anything about the doctors, other employees of the clinics or the patients. But I'm not a lawyer.

129. vw - 3/30/2001 3:56:34 PM

I wonder how the judges would have reacted if their names, addresses and telephone numbers had been posted on a similar site.

And they are risk for it they are including in the list of people that are targeted for information collection. From the mirror site:

In order to facilitate this effort, you can help collect evidence against:


1. Persons who perform abortion (doctors, nurses, etc.);
   
2. Persons who own or direct abortion clinics;
   
3. Persons who provide protection to abortion clinics (security guards, escorts, law enforcement officers, etc.); and
   
4. Judges and politicians who pass or uphold laws authorizing child-killing or oppressing pro-life activists.
   
   These classes of individuals are all committing various crimes to which they should answer. We regard them all as "abortionists."

130. wonkers2 - 3/30/2001 4:11:01 PM

Seems to me that the crime of extortion could be stretched a bit to cover that kind of thing. Or isn't threatening or soliciting bodily harm a crime?

131. vw - 3/30/2001 4:14:39 PM

Or isn't threatening or soliciting bodily harm a crime?

That seems to be the argument. The old Web site never said "shoot these people". They just urged the collection of the information, posted it and called the people listed murderers.

132. robertjayb - 3/30/2001 4:16:42 PM

news from NARAL...
April 1, presented as part of HBO's "America Undercover
Sundays," SOLDIERS IN THE ARMY OF GOD looks at the abortion
battlefield through the eyes of men and women who are
convinced that the killing of abortion providers and the
bombing of clinics is justifiable homicide in the name of
ending legalized abortion. SOLDIERS IN THE ARMY OF GOD
includes harrowing footage of abortion clinic attacks, most
notably the murder of a physician and his escort in
Pensacola, Fla., as well as interviews with survivors who
were targeted in the attacks.

SOLDIERS IN THE ARMY OF GOD debuts SUNDAY, APRIL 1
(10:00-11:15 p.m. ET), exclusively on HBO. Additional
playdates include April 4 (midnight) and 7 (9:30 am).

133. vw - 3/30/2001 4:18:14 PM

Damn, I wish I had HBO.

134. wonkers2 - 3/30/2001 4:19:39 PM

Watch out when you see army and God in the same sentence!

135. CalGal - 3/30/2001 4:36:01 PM

Every time I see stories like this, I think the same thing: the reason it is tolerated is because the majority of middle class and above Americans aren't getting inconvenienced by it. It only "works" because the general public isn't seriously affected.

Which brings up something else I've been wondering for a while--what is the abortion rate these days for middle and upper class women, whether single or married?

136. Erin R. - 3/30/2001 8:04:48 PM

Don't know--but my mother tells me the abortion rate is highest among married Catholic women.

137. mgleason - 3/30/2001 9:23:25 PM

Incidence of Abortion in the US from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 20%.

While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Catholic women are 29% more likely than Protestants to have an abortion, but are about as likely as all women nationally to do so.

2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

About 14,000 women have abortions each year following rape or incest.

This is a great site; they have many reports and studies on tap.

138. Cellar Door - 3/30/2001 9:33:39 PM

Let's Go Dutch!

139. joezan - 3/31/2001 9:31:38 AM

Privacy laws, wrt taping/photographing people without their knowledge - in whatever circumstances - vary widely from state-to-state.

A few months ago, in fact, I was watching an investigative report (on CBS?) which dealt with privacy in the communications age, and it was very scary.

For instance, the show reported on the case of a couple from the south (forget which state, but I think Arkansas) who bought a house from a guy they knew from church.

A year later, after catching the guy in the attic (along with many other suspicious incidents), they found spy cameras hidden all over the house and vcr machines under the insulation in the attic.

The guy could not be charged with anything - not even breaking & entering, according to this report, because no laws existed covering such behavior.

140. joezan - 3/31/2001 9:37:47 AM

Hey - we're all mighty bold around here, aren't we?

Anyway, in the same show they also focused on "voyeur" websites, where people hidden-camera post photos of women in bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc. Very sick stuff.

But no law in many places against taking such photos, and absolutely no law against these websites' making the photos available on the internet.

141. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 9:38:17 AM

I think we need a "right to privacy" amendment.

142. joezan - 3/31/2001 9:39:38 AM

...where people post hidden-camera photos...

143. joezan - 3/31/2001 9:41:15 AM

..especially you Arkansas pervs.

144. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 9:44:42 AM

Tell me about it.

145. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 9:55:30 AM

That story about the bugged house just gave me the creeps...I heard one like it concerning motels once. Yuck!

146. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 9:58:18 AM

And why wouldn't that sort of crime be covered under invasion of privacy, anyhow?

147. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 3:57:00 PM

I decided to take this to the "right" thread.

Jon,

"So is anybody with any sense who has taken the time to look at the science rather than buying into the PC bullshit that passes for conventional wisdom."

So racism equals common sense that most of the rest of us are too PC to cop to? What a tidy justification for prejudice. If you think you've got "science" behind your bigotry, then whatever makes your view of other races palatable to you, I guess. It never escapes my notice that the whites most prone to that attitude always seem to be scraping the bottom of the gene pool. I had placed you intellectually quite a bit above the inbred morons who spout that crap in my neck of the woods.

148. wonkers2 - 3/31/2001 8:48:47 PM

He reminds me of a puppy who's not yet housebroken.

149. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 8:58:47 PM

arky

Here's the entire relevant part of the post. I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me out of context:

If by racist, you mean that she thinks that certain races are genetically predisposed to certain traits and characteristics, then yes, she's a racist.

So is anybody with any sense who has taken the time to look at the science rather than buying into the PC bullshit that passes for conventional wisdom.

Now, before we start arguing, I'd like to know what we're arguing about.

Is it your contention that certain races are not genetically predisposed to certain traits and characteristics?

150. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:03:23 PM

This ludicrous notion that 'all men are created equal' is absurd.

If one were to take it to its logical extreme, one would come to the conclusion that genetics plays no role whatsoever in the physical, psychological, intellectual and emotional development of a human being. It would assign all differences between people to environmental variables.

That, my friends, is horse twaddle. Pure and simple.

151. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:15:17 PM

As far as prejudice goes, I don't prejudge people. Therefore, I am not prejudiced.

And I don't discriminate against people once I discover that they are stupid, regardless of race.

Otherwise, why would I be here? (g)

So please drop the prejudice argument.

Am I a bigot? Well, here's the definition:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions.

If I'm a bigot, I'm certainly not the only one here. And as the smartest person in the vast majority of conversations I enter, it's not too surprising that seldom do I encounter someone with the mental faculties to frame an idea or argument in such a way as to help me to achieve wisdom or enlightenment.

152. wonkers2 - 3/31/2001 9:15:33 PM

Jon, the concept is that all men and women are created, not identical, but equal in ultimate value before the law (one vote, etc.). Four quarters equal one paper dollar, but they aren't identical. I'm sure our forefathers noticed that everyone wasn't identical. Obviously, some are taller, shorter, smarter, etc.

153. Cellar Door - 3/31/2001 9:18:13 PM

So much for the U.S. Constitution, eh Jon? Why not just use it for toilet paper.

Your studied obtuseness on this matter is positively CalGalesque.

"Created equal," means everybody's supposed to get the same chance at the starting line. Whether they cross the finish line is another matter entirely. Equal Opportunity is not the same thing as Equal Result.

But you knew that and "plum fergot," didn;t you?

154. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:34:26 PM

Wonkers

I agree, that 'equality before the law' is what the framers intended (excluding women and racial minorities, of course) but this phrase has been coopted by the PC crowd to mean a whole lot more.

If arky shares your narrow interpretation of this phrase, then I'll happily drop it. At any rate, I really can't continue this until she responds.

155. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:34:30 PM

Actually, that's the Declaration of Independence, CD, but thanks for sharing.

What country did you say you are from?

156. mgleason - 3/31/2001 9:36:25 PM

Here's a link to a very good site on the American Eugenics Movement.

157. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:41:44 PM

Hi Maria, nice link.

I'm all for eugenics. Unfortunately, given its ugly, genocidal, xenophobic past, it's political suicide to support a stronger, healthier, smarter, faster, better-looking human population.

On the other hand, if everyone else was as strong, healthy, smart, fast and good-looking as me, I wouldn't be the awesome specimen that I am.

Maybe eugenics isn't all it's cracked up to be. (g)

158. mgleason - 3/31/2001 9:51:47 PM

Jon,

To give Francis Galton his due, he was a proponent of positive eugenics (the practice of encouraging the birth of children to parents having qualities considered desirable to the community). Unfortunately, this country and Germany were seduced by the idea of negative eugenics (the practice of attempting to prevent the birth of children considered likely to be defective, degenerate, or of unfit parentage).

The prospect of cloning will bring all the closet eugenicists out of the closet. This should be an interesting century.

(Definitions from the OED.)

159. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 9:57:28 PM

Maria,

The cloning phenomenon and the human genome project and its progeny will make eugenics inevitable. I'm sorry it likely won't be perfected in my lifetime, but I'm glad that it's so overwhelmingly likely to happen.

Medicine is so primitive. Poison, cut and burn. The only way to fix us once and for all is to start at the source, in our genes.

160. JudithAtHome - 3/31/2001 10:02:16 PM

Am I a bigot? Well, here's the definition:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions.

If I'm a bigot, I'm certainly not the only one here. And as the smartest person in the vast majority of conversations I enter, it's not too surprising that seldom do I encounter someone with the mental faculties to frame an idea or argument in such a way as to help me to achieve wisdom or enlightenment.

I'm sorry; this just struck me so very funny I had to post it.

161. mgleason - 3/31/2001 10:03:39 PM

Jon,

Have you ever read Beggars in Spain, by Nancy Kress? There are two sequels, but neither is as strong as the original, an expansion of a novella by Kress. I think you'd enjoy it.

162. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 10:05:28 PM

Glad I gave you a chuckle, Judith.

What's up with Cal? Do you know?

She was positively delightful to me for 3 weeks and all of a sudden, she snapped.

163. Jon Ferguson - 3/31/2001 10:06:34 PM

Maria,

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll pick it up at Chapters tomorrow.

164. CalGal - 3/31/2001 10:08:06 PM

Maria,

I thought the novella was far superior to the novel, myself.

165. mgleason - 3/31/2001 10:13:53 PM

CG,

So did I, but I enjoyed the book-length treatment. The only problem with great novellas is that they're over too soon.

166. arkymalarky - 3/31/2001 11:55:04 PM

Jon,

Stop kissing the mirror.

First, different does not automatically imply superior/inferior, and that was your implication in the second paragraph, which I quoted.

Second, had I included the first part of your post it wouldn't have changed my point, but reinforced it. The nature vs nurture argument has been done to death, but no one "with any sense" would attribute all human traits to one or the other solely. My personal opinion, partly based on the visible transition of many black Americans from poverty and ignorance to successful lives in recent years, is that the environment imposed on them by discrimination and segregation which is still to some degree ongoing socio-economically, and which has only been significantly affected by government intervention since the mid-60s, has impacted their current low socio-economic status as a group.

167. joezan - 4/1/2001 12:26:23 AM

And as the smartest person in the vast majority of conversations I enter...

Jon rides the little yellow bus to work, at the Sheltered Workshop.

168. joezan - 4/1/2001 12:27:16 AM

...Nice gif. at the top of the page, btw.

Whose work is it?

169. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 9:41:44 AM

Jon, The straw that broke the camel's back?

170. vw - 4/1/2001 11:54:33 AM

Folks, perhaps I need to clarify my position on appropriate discussion in this thread.

Post you opinion, defend it, back it up and do so with all the vigor, vehemence and passion you wish to exert. If your post consists of nothing but a personal attack on another poster outside the context of the discussions, I will remove the post. If your post consists of nothing but commentary meant to drag a personal argument from elsewhere into this thread, I will remove it.

I have nothing against strong language and passionately held beliefs, but I am bored to death with infighting, snit attacks and multi-thread goading. Avoid those and we’ll all be happy little campers.

171. CalGal - 4/1/2001 12:00:48 PM

Would it be fair to say that the US does not have a consistent social policy--reflected in subsidies, taxes, laws, etc?

Is there any country that does?

I'm not saying that we should have a consistent policy, I'm just curious what others think and how we differ from other countries.

172. vw - 4/1/2001 12:00:53 PM

Another really worthwhile read is Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley.

It has the background concerning the interaction between genetics and environment that The Bell Curve and the works critical of it are missing.

Specifically, chromosomes 7 & 16 seem to play an important role in the integration of behavioral factors into genetic predispostions.

A real plus is that Ridley has a very entertaining writing voice.

173. CalGal - 4/1/2001 12:07:03 PM

I have that book, but I've only read the first three chapters.

Chromosomes 7 & 16 have something to do with how people react to behavioral factors?

174. vw - 4/1/2001 12:17:55 PM

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have posted that when I only have 10 minutes before leaving (grin)

Ridley uses chromosome 7 (which plays a part in speech... IIRC in speech aquistion) to demonstrate the connection between behaviors (speech, grammar, etc.) and genetics (aacquistion of speech, readiness to hear langugage, etc.) and then aruges that here is an example chromosome 7 is a gene that equips humans with an instinct (behavior of speech) that has literally shaped our human culture.

His conclusion is that we should be no more surprised by genes for behavior than we are at genes for development.

175. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 12:23:30 PM

arky

I do not favor racial discrimination.

That's why I oppose affirmative action.

I'm glad we agree on this point.

I also oppose segregation.

Now that we've cleared that up, perhaps you could return to what you disagree with about my original statement. If nothing, then I would suggest that we have nothing to argue about.

If your only quibble is your truly extraordinary belief that although there are genetic 'differences' between races, none of those 'differences' affect the human brain (the most extraordinary example of the power of evolution that we have) then perhaps you could substantiate that belief. Do you believe that evolutionary advances take 'political correctness' into account before occurring? Or do you not believe in evolution at all?

176. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 12:55:22 PM

I believe evolution will rid the world of Conservabots.

177. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 1:04:04 PM

Jon,

I told you already. Read #166 again. It has everything in it that I had to say about your position on racial differences. If you'd care to specify exactly what "genetic predispositions" you think black Americans possess it might better clarify the differences in our opinions.

178. CalGal - 4/1/2001 1:11:11 PM

vw,

I'm just reading the book now. Also interesting is 6, which has the "intelligence" gene (supposedly).

16 is on memory.

179. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 1:12:44 PM

The white race is on its way out.

So grab all the gusto you can get, guys!

180. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 3:16:18 PM

Jon, That's right, our country's most pressing social problem is discrimination against whites through affirmative action. You've got it all figured out. Lack of progress by Blacks is solely because of their innate laziness and stupidity. So, why waste the taxpayers' money on education, public health and the like?

181. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2001 3:35:10 PM

wonkers

At last a voice that dares speak out! A voice that dares address the world such as it is in frank and open terms. Such a welcome relief from the coward Ferguson who hints and jabs but cannot bring himself to lay bare his real thoughts about The True Nature of the Negro.

182. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 3:36:20 PM

Jon's modest proposal is that certain races are genetically predisposed to certain traits and characteristics. As to the physical, I assume this is an accepted point.

Assuming that Jon speaks to intelligence, arky and wonkers and cellar become predictably hysterical. Jon responds with self-referential and mildly amusing testaments of superiority.

With that out of the way:

Arky, uncle wonkers, and Cellar: are certain races genetically predisposed to certain intellectual traits and characteristics? If so, which ones and how?

Jon, what intellectual traits and characteristics are exhibited by African-Americans as a result of genetic predisposition?

I'll hang up and wait for your answers.

183. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 3:38:26 PM

Pelle

It is unseemly to cheerlead a cheerleader.

184. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2001 3:41:43 PM

Well, Francis, I'm unfamiliar with the finer points of American ethics.

185. CalGal - 4/1/2001 3:41:58 PM

Can race even be genetically distinguished?

186. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 3:42:51 PM

You're certainly fond of misusing the word hysterical, FU. It belies your own tendencies to try to mask your heightened emotions toward certain topics in dry commentary which you delude yourself is insightful.

In short, I do not believe blacks are genetically predisposed to be intellectually inferior to whites. Do you?

187. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 3:42:53 PM

It is less an issue of ethics than one of taste.

188. CalGal - 4/1/2001 3:47:24 PM

But is race genetically distinguishable? Where does it start, if so?

189. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 3:49:15 PM

arky

That was not my question. My questions is broader. You avoid it necessarily, because you struggle between a desire for 1pristine thoughts and some basic knowledge of genetic predisposition.

I don't bob and weave so transparently. With regard to your query on African-Americans, my answer is the same as yours.

Now that we have tackled an issue in the specific, and hopefully, now that you have had another opportunity to declare your non-racism, try my question again.

Forget blacks and whites in these here United States. Anywhere, anyplace --

Are certain races genetically predisposed to certain intellectual traits and characteristics (to the better or to the worse)?

190. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 3:50:07 PM

And on that note, as I said, I'll have to hang up and check responses out later.

Adios.

191. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 3:52:11 PM

No.

FU has evidently done what's been typical of him for quite some time now--dropped a big pile, which he mistakes for incisive truth with a dash of wit, and left.

192. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 3:59:29 PM

"Arky, uncle wonkers, and Cellar: are certain races genetically predisposed to certain intellectual traits and characteristics? If so, which ones and how?"

White Heterosexaul Males are predisposed to poor choice in clothing and whining incessantly about how Black Heterosexual Male sports stars are getting all the pussy. At the same time they admire/envy said sports stars -- many of whom prefer the company of transvestites to females.

What causes this?

I neither know nor care.

Latino lawyers from D.C are another matter entirely.

193. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 4:01:37 PM

"You avoid it necessarily, because you struggle between a desire for 1pristine thoughts and some basic knowledge of genetic predisposition."

I'm avoiding nothing and there is no struggle, except with you trying to maintain an air of detached composure after being called on your M/O. Contrary to your self-perception, your bobbing and weaving is very transparent. At least Jon has way more guts than you do.

I have no "desire for pristine thoughts," just a basic belief that races have the same intellectual capabilities given similar circumstances. I'm well aware of the studies of the varying races and IQ differences. I look forward on your return to seeing your "basic knowledge of genetic predisposition."

194. seadate - 4/1/2001 4:33:30 PM

... interesting that the most flaming racists here are the most likely to accuse others of racism.

195. vw - 4/1/2001 4:34:07 PM

Can race even be genetically distinguished?

I think the answer is "kind of". You can look for certain markers for race specific traits like sickle cell anemia. You can look for the melanin makers but that only distinguishes between "light and dark" not race per se. If you had the computing power and the time, you could trace markers back through populations (like the Eve study did). But I don't believe there is a "race gene" which can be tested for in the same manner that we can identify sex.

196. vw - 4/1/2001 4:34:54 PM

melanin makers = malenin markers

197. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 4:36:58 PM

FU, Beats me! Soon after publication of The Bell Curve,I participated at a class reunion in a discussion of intelligence led by a noted psychology professor. He was reluctant to express definite opinions. If memory serves me, he pointed to definitional problems with intelligence or intellectual traits, and difficulty testing for "innate" intelligence because of environmental influences. He said there have been inconclusive efforts to relate measurements of reaction time and other physiological traits to pure brain function or "innate" intelligence. When asked about the quality of research in "The Bell Curve" his response was fairly negative.

Aside from the problem of defining intelligence and separating innate from environmentally affected capacity, there are definitional problems with the concept of race. When I was in college, "Christian" fraternities commonly excluded applicants with 1/8 or more Negro or Jewish ancestry. Even today many people with mainly white ancestry still consider themselves and are considered by society as Black. Similar contradictions exist for Hispanics whose ancestry ranges from pure Spanish to pure American Indian, to pure African and infinite mixtures of the above with admixtures of other racial groups. So, this also makes it fruitless to ascribe intellectual traits to these groups. Even generalizing about physical traits is difficult.

Beyond this, most of the efforts to rank the intelligence of races come from the right (one of the authors of "The Bell Curve" was a career GOP flack, as I recall, and the other a Harvard professor with a shaky reputation in his field) and from opponents of affirmative action and other efforts to improve public education and ameliorate inner city problems. This makes their claims suspect. Innate racial differences in intellectual capacity, if indeed there are any, are small and meaningless compared to differences due to social conditions and have no implications for public policy.

198. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 4:45:52 PM

I agree with Wonkers2 post.

This quote in particular states, for me, the top level influence upon intelligence,
"difficulty testing for "innate" intelligence because of environmental influences".

199. vw - 4/1/2001 4:50:14 PM

definitional problems with intelligence or intellectual traits

I think this is the core problem for me, we don't have a widely accepted defintion or measure for "intelligence". One of the most striking examples of this I have seen was a series of studies by an animal behavoralist who was looking for a cross-species measure for intelligence.

We all have a kind of informal ranking of other species for intellegince. We "know" mammals are more "intelligent" than reptiles that are more "intelligent" then insects. We know a dog is more "intelligent" than a mouse and so on.

Unfortunately, we can't come up with a measure of intelligence that holds up across all these species. You can create a test where "lower" mammals rank out where we expect them to, but than elephants fail.

The differences in environmental adapations of the species confounds are ability to create a consistent measure. By extension, it is reasonable to conject that differences in environmental adaptions within species would create the same confounding dynamic.

200. vw - 4/1/2001 4:51:15 PM

Man, sorry for the typos ... I'm not even going to bother correcting all of them.

201. CalGal - 4/1/2001 4:58:28 PM

one of the authors of "The Bell Curve" was a career GOP flack, as I recall, and the other a Harvard professor with a shaky reputation in his field

You recall incorrectly. Murray is a libertarian, and Herrnstein did not have a "shaky" reputation in his field. He had caused a fuss earlier by talking about intelligence--again. Within his field, he was generally well-regarded.

In fact, the real problem is that generally accepted facts about intelligence make people very nervous.

1. There is no dispute that heredity and environment play a big part, but the case for heredity has always been clearer, whereas environmental factors haven't been nailed down.

2. The fact that "race" patterns exist in IQ scores has been true for a long time.

3. While IQ may possibly be malleable, the case for it being fairly unchangeable is stronger at this point in time.

Toss race into the picture and this makes people uncomfortable. But in fact, if there is a bias, the bias is towards smart people, not towards white people. Racism exists, certainly. The issue is how much is it affecting results?

It sounds wonderful to prattle on about environment and social conditions, but while M&H's case has been smacked about, there are plenty of other studies that have suggested or established a lot of their baseline case--which is, remember, that IQ is a better predictor of success than socio-economic conditions.

And none of this has anything to do with race and "genetic characteristics", since race can't even be defined genetically.

202. Francis Urquhart - 4/1/2001 4:59:59 PM

in order to avoid ruffling the feathers of good and fine people who fear extrapolation of such thought to social policy, I'll throw out a popular truism based on genetic predisposition on an intellectual level.

Asians Do Math Better than non-Asians.

It seems a simple proposition.

1) Is it true?
2) If so, is it attributable to non-genetic factors?
3) If so, what are those factors?
4) Could those non-genetic factors be in concert with genetic factors?

Now, again, I can only stay for a moment. I apologize if actually asking questions and positing argument detracts from the feel-good "How dare you!" posturing of late.

I'll check in next time I get a chance.

203. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:00:35 PM

I think this is the core problem for me, we don't have a widely accepted defintion or measure for "intelligence".

Quite true. Although I like the guy who said, "Intelligence is what we measure on intelligence tests."

204. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 5:00:51 PM

The fact that "race" patterns exist in IQ scores has been true for a long time.

then

Toss race into the picture and this makes people uncomfortable.

Where did the quotation marks go?

205. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:06:10 PM

Cellar,

That's what makes it so ironic. There's no genetic basis for race, apparently, yet at the same time people want to use it as a definition.

For example, no one wants to use race as a basis for IQ patterns, but lots of people want to use it as a basis for affirmative action.

So I used "race" in quotes the first time because, given people's tendency to jump to conclusions, I wanted it to be clear that I wasn't talking about genetics.

206. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 5:11:18 PM

"For example, no one wants to use race as a basis for IQ patterns, but lots of people want to use it as a basis for affirmative action."

Apple Meet Orange.

There was a very good bit on "Some of My Best Friends" a week ago in which Alec Mapa threatened a roomful of straight Italians by demanding they apologize for making homophobic remarks or else he wouldn't fix their broken cable connection so they could watch the fights. They duly apologized -- and he skipped out. Why? He had no idea of how to fix a broken cable connection.

207. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:14:55 PM

"I'll throw out a popular truism based on genetic predisposition on an intellectual level."

What evidence do you have that it's "based on a genetic predisposition" and not cultural? I don't have any either way, but if there is a breakdown of hereditary and environmental influences on that fact, by all means offer it up.

"I apologize if actually asking questions and positing argument detracts from the feel-good "How dare you!" posturing of late."

Don't flatter yourself as being that much a thorn in the side of the prevailing view. For future reference, if you don't want to "ruffle feathers" don't accuse people falsely of being "typically hysterical" on your entry into a debate, idiot.

Oops. Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers there.

208. mgleason - 4/1/2001 5:15:10 PM

Here's a brief summary of Herrnstein and Murray's claims WRT race and IQ, as well as the rebuttals by their critics.

209. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 5:18:43 PM

Political Correctness in Minnesota! Who's going to defend Freedom of Specch in all of this I ask you?

210. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:19:04 PM

"There's no genetic basis for race, apparently, yet at the same time people want to use it as a definition."

There is an obvious and visible physical genetic basis for race. The debate comes in when people look at IQ differences and correlate it to an intellectual genetic difference.

211. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 5:20:47 PM

arky

My simple point is that people who ignore the data and cling to their politically correct notions, while smearing as 'racists' those who wish to conduct scientific research on the differences in certain physical and mental attributes owing to our racial genetic makeup are acting irrationally. If you want to reject scientific evidence, be my guest. But no amount of rational argument will justify your position. A few ad hominems seems to be the best that you and your supporters can muster.

If we can agree that I, a genius, shouldn't have more rights than you, a person of average intelligence, then what fucking difference does it make to say that, even after factoring out as many external factors as possible, on average, orientals are more successful at tests measuring reasoning ability than whites are and that that difference is statistically significant?

West Africans tend to be great leapers and sprinters relative to other races/ethnicities.

East Africans tend to be great long-distance runners relative to other races/ethnicities.

European whites tend to have great upper body strength relative to other races/ethnicities.

So fucking what? We can make generalizations about a race, supported by overwhelming statistical scientific evidence, without being racist. Or if you want to call it racist, then you have to clarify that it's not a negative slur.

There is no reason to believe that if there are physical dissimilarities owing to genetics that there shouldn't be mental dissimilarities owing to genetics. If you disagree with this point, explain your reasoning.

212. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 5:20:56 PM

The only answer you can come up with is:

I'm a strong believer in equality. I've been conditioned to believe that all people are born with equal potential. I've been conditioned to believe that it is socially unacceptable to acknowledge differences between races. Rather than stand on logic and principle over political correctness, I choose to ignore the evidence and continue to spout what I've been conditioned to believe. It is easier that way and more people will like me.

213. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 5:22:26 PM

What I know from experience is that environment and not genetics has more to do with intelligence than an inherited trait for intelligence(within a median sample). Also I disagree that someone with higher intelligence will have measurable chances to step up and out of socio-economic deprivations. I think there is no measure which can support any claim that their intelligence saves them from negative environs. Individual cases do not define a rule for the group, which in my opinion, is rather broad in scope, both population, race, location, etc....

On the other hand, I think there is a measurable affect of socio-economic advantage upon acedemic success. Though this is again a broad scope, time and again we hear of sholastic success where economic conditions have improved educational opportunity.

214. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 5:26:30 PM

"My simple point is that people who ignore the data and cling to their politically correct notions, while smearing as 'racists' those who wish to conduct scientific research on the differences in certain physical and mental attributes owing to our racial genetic makeup are acting irrationally."

In other words "Do as I say OR ELSE!"

"Science" is never to be questioned. When our Invisible Friends in the Sky won't do, we have "scientific objectivity" to aide us. And anyone who dares to question it is "irrational."

"I'm a strong believer in equality."
How nice
"I've been conditioned to believe that all people are born with equal potential. I've been conditioned to believe that it is socially unacceptable to acknowledge differences between races."

How horrible for you! All that "conditioning"!

215. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 5:26:54 PM

Good article Cellar, there's to damn many like it in Minnesota!

216. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:27:42 PM

Maria,

Actually, that link demonstrates something that has always irritated me.

1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 aren't M&H claims. They are, in one form or another, generally accepted within the psychometric community.

So to put them on the list of M&H "claims" is to pretend they are controversial. They aren't. The study and measuring of intelligence might be controversial, but not the results.

That leaves 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10.

3 and 6 have been supported by other studies since--and as Ase's link mentions, there have been other private assessments of M&H's NLSY data that have reached fundamentally similar results.

8 is hardly arguable. If it were caveated with "Race and SES plays no role" it would be controversial, but as stated, I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

9 and 10 are unquestionably political assertions made by the two.

So out of that whole group, only two of them are claims that are only made by M&H.

217. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 5:28:25 PM

Well what do you expect from the "Liberal press," Rick?

218. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:29:22 PM

There is an obvious and visible physical genetic basis for race.

As vw points out, there is a genetic basis only for melanin markers, or whatever. That's hardly a genetic basis for race.

219. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 5:31:02 PM

CD

Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. The second post was a summary of arky's position (without all the bullshit accoutrements.)

220. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 5:32:02 PM

I think there are to many self-centered egotists who think that science is here to give them explaination for their existence. That gives them excuse to close their eyes and ears to what they could redily learn by experiencing conditions within and effects of varying environments. A scientist in a lab will not learn about environmental effect unless they live within and experience that environment. It's pretty simple reasoning, which even self-centered egotists can understand.

221. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:32:27 PM

"There is no reason to believe that if there are physical dissimilarities owing to genetics that there shouldn't be mental dissimilarities owing to genetics. If you disagree with this point, explain your reasoning."

No one has yet to offer any genetic evidence in support of your claim. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you know what definable, verifiable genetic evidence even means. Like you claim wrt God, I simply do not believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence. When you've got genetic proof that differences in intellect among races are part of their unchangeable genetic makeup, let me know.

"I've been conditioned to believe that it is socially unacceptable to acknowledge differences between races. Rather than stand on logic and principle over political correctness, I choose to ignore the evidence and continue to spout what I've been conditioned to believe. It is easier that way and more people will like me."

Bzzzzt! Wrong again. I do not believe that there is a genetic basis for inferiority of one race intellectually. Period. Sorry I don't agree with your CW, Jon. Provide me irrefutable evidence of a genetic basis for intellectual differences or climb down from the flag pole. You might get hurt.

And you're no genius. You're a Smerdyakov.

222. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:38:57 PM

Maria,

And then, as far as the "rebuttals" go--they aren't really rebuttals. They don't contradict any of the claims directly.

First, they complain about the concept of "race". "Race" has been used in sociological studies for a long time, and only now they're getting around to complaining about it? To say nothing of the fact that in other of their points they mention "minority group status". That is, race.

Some of them are much closer to wishful thinking. There is, increasingly, little good reason to believe that racial difference in IQ measure economic differences. Group averages haven't changed all that much. And the case for test bias has been pretty much eliminated, although Steele's work on test performance is interesting--although that is also quite new.

I thought this was particularly amusing:

M&H: American society is a meritocratic society, in which cognitive ability is an important component of economic success

"Rebuttal": Cognitive ability is one component of economic success in modern American society along with, for example, ambition, creativity, and skill at interpersonal relations.

Quite apart from the fact that M&H made much the same point, how does this differ from what M&H said?

223. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:38:57 PM

"As vw points out, there is a genetic basis only for melanin markers, or whatever. That's hardly a genetic basis for race."

What are you defining race as? Of course VW also mentioned things like sicle cell anemia, but even without that, any physical traits of a particular race would be genetic--color, hair, etc.

224. mgleason - 4/1/2001 5:40:15 PM

CG,

The summary presents the points made by Herrnstein and Murray without regard to exclusivity, and the answers to those points. I find it useful as a frame for the debate, without accepting that everything stated by M & H is false and the refutations by their critics unimpeachable.

225. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:41:40 PM

What are you defining race as?

Are Arabs and Africans the same race? How about Hispanics and Africans?

So give me a skin color or melanin count that is definitively "black".

Give me a hair color that's exclusive to Hispanics.

Give me an eye color that makes someone definitively white. Someone with blue eyes can't be black, right? Can't qualify for AA?

226. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:42:59 PM

Maria, I wasn't complaining about your source or confusing that source with your position. I was just pointing out that it is incorrect to say that those are the points made by M&H's book. Very few of them are.

227. mgleason - 4/1/2001 5:44:23 PM

Rick,

A scientist in a lab will not learn about environmental effect unless they live within and experience that environment.

Your observation flies in the face of the scientific method, which is the 'systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.'

228. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 5:44:45 PM

Like you claim wrt God, I simply do not believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

You most certainly do, my dear. You believe in the incredibly naive notion of absolute intellectual equality among all races. In spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, you are so emotionally attached to your mistaken belief, that you aren't even willing to concede the possibility that you might be mistaken. That's the result of PC conditioning. You are brainwashed.

Provide me irrefutable evidence of a genetic basis for intellectual differences or climb down from the flag pole.

Provide me irrefutable evidence there is no God. Your fallacious reasoning is exceeded only by the thumpers in Religion, my dear. 'Irrefutable evidence' almost never exists, arky. You are clinging to your erroneous beliefs because they comfort you, just as the thumpers cling to theirs.

I see this is fruitless. Your arguments are specious and irrational. I've made my overwhelming case. You've failed to address (or perhaps, to comprehend) my central arguments. No point in continuing this given how ingrained your prejudice is.

229. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:45:03 PM

Once again, these people all have discernible physical characteristics, so what is your definition of a race?

230. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:47:26 PM

Ok, forget irrefutable Jon. Just make sure the evidence is genetic in nature. You have not stated one fact that supports a genetic basis for differences in intellectual capabilities between races.

231. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 5:48:35 PM

229 was to Cal. Sorry.

232. CalGal - 4/1/2001 5:51:35 PM

Arky,

I am saying that there doesn't appear to be a genetic basis for race. At the same time, it has been used for studies for a long time--based primarily on skin color or last name, I figure. That's what I find ironic. Some people squawk about how there really isn't such a thing as race when it's used as a comparison point for intelligence tests, but they don't mind it when the same thing is used for affirmative action.

But it's the same thing in both cases. It's a convenient grouping that is used, and that's fine. It's not the same thing as saying that races are genetically distinguishable.

233. mgleason - 4/1/2001 5:54:43 PM

CG,

I don't see how you can say that the summary isn't a faithful presentation of M & H's arguments in The Bell Curve. Again, the summary doesn't purport to report only the claims that are exclusive to M & H, nor does it give more weight to the views of their critics. It simply presents both sides, without comment. As you note, some of the rebuttals are weak.

You're reading too much into it; it's meant to foster debate.

234. CalGal - 4/1/2001 6:00:19 PM

Maria,

I think you're missing the generic nature of my rant. It's not even geared towards that link in particular, just the process.

If someone reads that M&H made the claim that blacks generally score lower on IQ tests, they figure that this is a debatable, questionable claim.

But M&H don't make that claim. It is largely considered a given. So why include it?

Most of the "rebuttals" made to the Bell Curve were of this nature. They were complaints about the fundamentals--about g, about the racial difference in IQ tests, and so on.

I wasn't faulting your link, because it is much the same as all other "summaries" of the debate. But I think the "summaries" are all extremely inaccurate.

235. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 6:01:11 PM

It's not meant to foster debate at all. It's meant to promote racism as "rational."

236. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 6:01:43 PM

Cal,

But the original grouping by race was based basically on physical characteristics alone. In the original division of people into three races, caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid as groups all were defined according to distinct physical traits. I know that package was too neat and there are many different physical features to be found in the human species, but since races were originally identified based on physical traits it's hard for me to understand what you're trying to say wrt race and genetics--that it's a false construct? That there are no generally distinguishing physical characteristics of different races? Or simply that there is no one genetic marker defining a specific race?

237. mgleason - 4/1/2001 6:10:41 PM

CG,

M & H do report that blacks generally score lower on IQ tests. Perhaps you're focusing too much on my use of the word 'claim' - a claim is any assertion, without regard to validity or provability. So when I use 'claim,' I'm not saying that their assertions are in dispute.

Cellar,

How can you possibly take that summary as promoting racism?

238. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 6:11:50 PM

I cannot deny I've challenged the scientific method Maria. I stand by what I've asserted with regard to socio-economic influence and its' effect upon intelligence. The effects cannot be measured in a lab with scope that will enable the truth. I have asserted the scope is to broad to be measured, and I will give some reasons.

The deprivations will include, family life, housing, food, clothing, drugs, crime, abuse, neglect, job, etc.... Each of these will have variations of effect. The measure of all the variations is what causes the sample to be unpredictable. Therefore the samples will be inevitabley skewed in every test, save an extremely large study.

Whose going to do that one, the government? HA, then will anyone believe the result isn't biased? I think the scientific community will be stymied to find a satisfactory method or sample from which to relate accurate results.

The consequence of this is that any scientific method relating intelligence to socio-economic deprivation is likely, in my opinion to be biased and skewed. Not necessarily with malice, I don't believe it is possible to create accurate results.

I do however believe that persons who have lived through the conditions of deprivation can relate the effects with some degree of accuracy for which the scientist will be unable to duplicate in a lab. These persons would have to be followed from their beginnings of life to secure adulthood, and the sample will have to be very large, perhaps thousands from each factor of the scope. Then I would believe the study.

239. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 6:14:43 PM

socio-economic influence = socio-economic deprivation

240. Cellar Door - 4/1/2001 6:15:19 PM

The core of problem is the belief that whitness is the natural order of things and everything else is a deviation from the norm.

241. mgleason - 4/1/2001 6:17:17 PM

I disagree, Rick. One does not have to experience something in order to measure the effects, effects that do not need to be 'duplicated in a lab.'

While environmental factors are the very devil to account for and isolate, as are genetic ones, that doesn't mean that they are impervious to analysis.

242. RickNelson - 4/1/2001 6:47:56 PM

Maria you're right that idea is a bear.

243. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 7:06:27 PM

Cal, Ok, Murray is a libertarian ideologue rather than a GOP flack. My point was that he comes from the hard right and opposes government expenditures, regulations, etc, to improve education and social conditions AND that he had no particular credentials that qualified him to pronounce on race and IQ. Finally, his pronouncements were influenced by his libertarian position. I guess there is no easy way to resolve our difference over Herrnstein's stature. Seems to me he doesn't come from the mainstream in his field, which I concede doesn't prove that he did shoddy work. However, I recall reading quite a few negative comments on "The Bell Curve" by scholars in articles and letters to the editor in publications like The Atlantic, New York Review, New York Times. I didn't go so far as to look for articles in academic journals. Did you?

244. Autodaffy - 4/1/2001 7:27:30 PM

No argument depends on who is voicing it or who attacks it or whether it has been "questioned" (another weasel criticism recently used herabouts). Ever hear of ad hominem arguments?

245. mgleason - 4/1/2001 7:37:13 PM

For CG:

A site devoted to The Bell Curve.

246. mgleason - 4/1/2001 8:11:46 PM

Nicholas Lemann's review of The Bell Curve in Slate.

247. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 8:38:26 PM

mg, The Slate article is a good one. I was only able to bring up three of the 5 case studies. I may have read it and have been influenced by it when it originally was published. Tnx. I commend it to CalGal.

248. mgleason - 4/1/2001 8:45:37 PM

You're welcome, Wonkers. You should try the case studies again; they all work for me.

249. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 8:56:51 PM

I will. Do you know who did The Bell Curve site?
It struck me that it may have been done by Murray or the book's publisher or the American Enterprise Institute because it led off with a bunch of stuff by Murray and listed a a comment by Arthur Jensen in the balanced category.

250. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 9:10:00 PM

I got them all to work. The article and the case studies confirm my conclusion that the book is more a piece of ideology than scholarship. I did a little browsing in Upstream where The Bell Curve site appeared. It seems to by an on-line equivalent or cousin of The National Review, filled with articles in the same vein as The Bell Curve.

251. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 9:13:07 PM

Maria,

Mr. Lemann's quibbles are distinctly unimpressive.

Quibble 1

H&M assert that 'the liberal position on IQ--namely, "Intelligence is a bankrupt concept"--has been discredited.'

Mr. Lemann says 'The notion that IQ tests are completely useless never prevailed in liberal academia to nearly the extent that Herrnstein and Murray say.'

So what? What matters is that the stated position has been discredited, not whether or not all liberals held that position.

Quibble 2

Smart people rise to the top, but you can't prove that they rise to the top because they're smart. Maybe it's just because the top universities only accept the smartest people.

So what? Smart people deserve to rise to the top. If you want to see what happens when you put stupid people in charge, look at the Mote. For many years, the children of the rich were in charge, now it's smart people. Wonderful!

Quibble 3

H&M haven't been able to perfectly isolate IQ and have in some cases included education in measuring how smart someone is when running the regression on how predictive IQ is to future economic success. The evidence to support this assertion is that for economical reasons, H&M had to rely on results from the Armed Forces Qualifying Test rather than a true IQ test.

So what? In a perfect world, you could test every American with an IQ test, and then run a genetic analysis of their DNA down to the last chromosome. This isn't a perfect world. The Armed Forces Qualifying Test is a very good, albeit imperfect, measurer of IQ.

252. mgleason - 4/1/2001 9:13:46 PM

I don't know who's behind the site, but this is what they say about themselves:

These pages are a home for the intellectually heterodox, the politically incorrect and other independent thinkers. A home for outlaws.

They're allied with pinc (politically incorrect), an occasional Internet magazine tackling political correctness, taboo subjects and latter-day shibboleths: race, intelligence, feminism, postmodernism, higher education, speech codes and more, but you probably guessed that.

253. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 9:26:43 PM

Quibble 4

In an analysis of whether IQ is more predictive of future economic success than socioeconomic status, 'Herrnstein and Murray get their measure of socioeconomic status by averaging four factors at equal weight: mother's education, father's education, father's occupation, and family income. The last two of these were missing for many of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth subjects, and in those cases, Herrnstein and Murray substituted an average for the entire sample.'

According to some, that skewed the results.

Again, life isn't perfect. The variables were missing. They did the best they could with the data they had.

Apparently, some liberal researchers reran the test by making up data instead of using an average for the entire sample. They got different results. Go figure.

Quibble 5

H&M chose not to investigate the predictive nature of education to future economic success in isolation because 'education is too much a result of IQ.'

That goes without saying. The fact that IQ rises with education (duh!) and the fact that there is 'a higher correlation between college degree and family income than between IQ and family income' are irrelevant. Of course IQ isn't the ONLY predictor of future economic success, nobody said it was.

Quibble 6

H&M say that IQ is very highly heritable (40-80%).

Mr. Lemann replies: No, no, it's only highly heritable. (34-46%)

Get bent, Mr. Lemann. And stop engaging in the fallacious reasoning and 'bad science' that you're accusing H&M of.

254. mgleason - 4/1/2001 9:28:18 PM

Jon,

WRT your quibbles:

1. Lemann is making the point that the notion that H &M are allegedly discrediting, the 'liberal' position on IQ, is a straw man. The actual position is more nuanced.

2. The second point has to do with social class; as Lemann says, the premise that intelligent people used to be scattered throughout the class structure, and are now concentrated at the top--is almost impossible to prove.

3. The problem with the AFQT is that scores tend to rise with education.

255. mgleason - 4/1/2001 9:37:26 PM

The rest of the quibbles:

4. Their absence of those factors still affects the results.

5. Factoring in the effects of higher education, might, as Lemann suggests, support the pro-education philosophy that H & M discount.

6. There's nothing wrong with citing the proper range.

256. wonkers2 - 4/1/2001 9:39:00 PM

Jon, So what's your point? Don't pussyfoot around. Aren't you saying that Blacks are genetically inferior to whites, so why waste the taxpayers' money on a lost cause? I wonder why you're being more oblique than usual.

257. mgleason - 4/1/2001 9:39:13 PM

I'm going to a late movie, so I won't be around. So long.

258. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 10:04:03 PM

Maria

Thanks for stating the obvious.

I didn't say that Mr. Lemann's quibbles were entirely without merit, only that they were 'distinctly unimpressive' and I will now add that they have certainly not 'seriously undercut the claims of the controversial best seller.' (emphasis mine)

Have a great evening. I hope the film's a good one.

Wonkers

I will say that many African Americans are smarter than many Caucasian Americans. What's the point of being needlessly inflammatory? What matters to me is the individual, not generalizations about a group.

But if you insist upon making generalizations about a group, they'd better be accurate. Not some hippie PC bullshit.

If you want me to make a generalization, here's one I'm happy to make: Asians (as a group) are, from the studies I've seen, intellectually superior to whites (as a group).

259. joezan - 4/1/2001 10:09:10 PM

...but we're better-looking.


God is always fair, in the allotting of the gifts.

260. Jon Ferguson - 4/1/2001 10:23:47 PM

And Joe's reaction is exactly the right one to have.

If I was a smart, successful black man like CD, (except I was straight), and somebody said to me:

Whites (as a group) are, from the studies I've seen, intellectually superior to blacks (as a group).

I'd say 'Yeah, but we're better looking, we dance better, we run faster, we've got bigger dicks, better music, the best athletes, etc., etc. ... and I personally am smarter than 99% of you white motherfuckers, so how do you like them apples?'

Nobody ever said that intelligence is the be-all and end-all. And genetic differences (other than pigmentation) between races do exist.

Anyway, I'm bored with this topic. It's really not one that interests me all that much and far moreso from the intellectual honesty vs. hippie PC brainwashed claptrap angle than from the Race X is superior vs. All races are EXACTLY THE SAME because my hippie parents who watched the 'I have a dream speech' 1000 times said so angle.

It's kind of like defending Cazart or this XTC guy. I know that they both were wrongfully fucked over by the PTB, but that doesn't mean I'm keen to be perceived as their 'buddy.'

In this case, I don't want to be seen as a redneck or white power freak just because I believe that science trumps conventional wisdom.

261. mgleason - 4/1/2001 10:23:48 PM

AAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH! The movie time didn't match what was published in the paper.

Jon,

The obvious needs stating sometimes, especially when the focus shifts.

Lemann’s objections to The Bell Curve don’t seem unimpressive to me. H & M depend on the confluence of a number of factors to add weight to their thesis, and when the support for those factors is whittled away, their edifice is much less secure. The case studies at the end of Lemann’s critique serve to illuminate the shakiness of some of their conclusions.

I am not one who shrinks away from scientific analysis, and don't consider any subject taboo, but I am left cold by researchers who will not submit to the rigorous demands of such analysis.

(Corrigendum: 4. in Message # 255 should read The absence of those factors...)

262. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 12:34:43 AM

If I was a smart, successful black man like CD, (except I was straight),

Aha! You've isolated my most important quality!

and somebody said to me:

Whites (as a group) are, from the studies I've seen, intellectually superior to blacks (as a group).

I'd say 'Yeah, but we're better looking, we dance better, we run faster, we've got bigger dicks, better music, the best athletes, etc., etc. ... and I personally am smarter than 99% of you white motherfuckers, so how do you like them apples?'

And I'd say "Jeez! Are you a hopelessly gullible moron or just a garden-variety racist?"

263. wonkers2 - 4/2/2001 8:39:33 AM

It's especially depressing to see such a young racist as Jon-boy. His attitudes remind me of my grandfather's generation and the Hitler Youth.

264. vw - 4/2/2001 3:44:43 PM

The complaints allege offensive behavior by non-Jewish professors toward Jewish colleagues, ranging from ignorance of or insensitivity to Jewish culture and history to blatantly anti-Semitic remarks. from the Washington Post article upthread. Emphasis mine.

When did ignorance of another culture become tantamount with discrimination?

265. CalGal - 4/2/2001 4:00:22 PM

Which post article?

Maria,

I read the Lehmann article; some of his points are refuted in the other link you brought in (www.mugu.com). I'm tied up today--and feeling a bit zonked by the DST switch, is it only me?--but will respond.

266. CalGal - 4/2/2001 4:07:08 PM

Oh, I found it. It's odd that such a hotbed of discrimination would hire a Japanese American president.

267. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 5:29:20 PM

Mike Silverman - 02:00 pm PDT - Apr 2, 2001 - #5522 of 5523
Bush is an asshole with sinister motives. Accept that as a given, and everything makes sense.
The social fabric of the Netherlands was spontaneously rent asunder today as the Dutch legalized homosexual marriage.

Just as the first few tens of gay couples applied for marriage licenses, roughly 8 million Dutch couples filed for divorce.

"Though I've been married to Piejter for 21 years and we've raised two children, since same sex couples can marry, our vows just don't mean anything anymore" Nijmegen housewife Anna Rijndel said. "So, it's over."

Other parts of the Netherlands saw massive incidents of civil disturbances and outright rioting.

"Since gays can marry, I figured it was OK if I made off with some electronics," Hans Shijndorf said as he carried away a television and a stereo from the smashed window of a department store.

Frogs have reportedly rained from the sky 30 kilometers south of Amsterdam, and there were unconfirmed reports that a small boy who was plugging a dike with his finger was repeatedly sodomized.

American evangelist Fred Phelps has been reportedly mobilizing his followers for the final battle between good and evil that the actions of the Dutch have precipitated.

"I told them this would happen, I surely did. When I told them that legalizing marijuana would call down God's wrath, they didn't listen to me. Two weeks later, half of Amsterdam was incinerated by a heavenly pillar of fire," Phelps ranted. "You'd think they would have listened this time."

268. glendajean - 4/2/2001 5:44:00 PM

Instead of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they should could have named it Defense ALL Things We Hold Sacred Act (DATWHSA).

269. ScottLoar - 4/2/2001 6:04:38 PM

re Message # 258: No, as a group East Asians and South Asians seem to be more canny, more shrewd, more highly educated (not better read mind you) than whites as they deplore gullibility, advance shrewdness and sharp bargaining, and equate higher education with financial security. They almost universally suffer from clannishness, a world view myopic in the extreme, a pronounced lack in adult life of creativity and insight (insight, in my opinion, being the quality of an agile mind), and are sometimes overly educated to the extreme of impracticability (as witnesses the PhD running a restaurant to make a living). They further generally suffer from a pedestrian outlook which advances their economic condition at the expense of all else (Amy Tan describes this well) as the family dictates the sons and daughters commit to a profession of high income and thereby avoid the travails of life yet enjoy its comforts.

270. Jon Ferguson - 4/2/2001 9:08:26 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Scott. What you say rings true.

271. Cellar Door - 4/2/2001 10:03:37 PM

"canny, more shrewd, more highly educated"

In other words, they're Jews!

What can be done to stop this Yellow Hebrew Menace?

272. pogie - 4/2/2001 10:14:44 PM

Actually, the fact that several asian groups are currently analogous to jews in the us several decades or so ago has been noted in some articles. I believe even salon did one on it, some while ago. But basically the pattern seems to be asians in a position similar to jews (not yet fully assimilated, high income, emphasis on education, clannishness and emphasis on family) and in another generation or so they will be 'default white' (able to poke fun of their culture in the mainstream, but not really discriminated against as they are 'pretty much white' at that point.) With hispanics, a similar pattern is occurring, but those groups are mostly a lot lower income, so the default white status will likely take several more generations to kick in. To me, california (particularly northern cali) has already started considering south/east asians defaullt white and assimilating them as just about mainstream.

273. wonkers2 - 4/2/2001 11:24:16 PM

Pogie, Are you sure they want "to be considered default white?"

274. pogie - 4/2/2001 11:33:47 PM

Well, jews are set off slightly from the default of euro-descended WASP, as are italians and irish. Those groups of asians are simply likely (along with several of the spanish speaking groups) to get tossed into that pool of 'white'-- still retaining ethnic identity, but no longer discriminated against based on it. In other words, a shift in how the mainstream views them regardless of them actively trying to assimilate or not.

275. Erin R. - 4/2/2001 11:35:18 PM

pogie,

When do you think that Americans of African ancestry will become "default white?"

276. arkymalarky - 4/2/2001 11:39:39 PM

I hope you get time to read back through this thread discussion, Erin. I'd be interested in your input.

277. wonkers2 - 4/2/2001 11:41:31 PM

Is "default white" Silicon Valley Girl talk by any chance?

278. Erin R. - 4/2/2001 11:46:57 PM

I'm way behind on my Moting. I've only caught bits and pieces of this discussion.

279. pogie - 4/2/2001 11:48:24 PM

I personally think america's heading down the road of brazil in some ways as far as that goes-- as in lighter skinned or 'exotic' looking multiracial/mixed black people will be able to slide in, possibly some mid-range skin color people (cf the cosby show for a general idea of skin colours that would likely fit--several midrange people, a couple of very light/mixed people in that tv family).


However, I have noticed that non american blacks (particularly west indians) are setting themselves up societally the same way some asian groups are, so they may follow that trajectory even though they are very dark skinned. But I don't know how far america's color biases will extend. With brazil, middling dark skin and lighter tend to be much better off, and asians/hispanics are mostly lighter skinned to midrange, with the addition of straighter hair and in some cases more euro-type features. So I figure some blacks will make it in, but I'm not sure which ones excepting very light or multiethnic ones.

280. pogie - 4/2/2001 11:56:04 PM

Default white is just my personal term for groups accepted by the mainstream, even if they deviate somewhat from the vintage WASP default that is mostly cliche now. Just looking at stuff like the much higher rates of hispanic/white or asian/white interracial pairings; and the AAP (asian-american princess) phenomena, it just seems like america is expanding its definitions of 'white' to embrace asian and hispanic groups, though it hasn't fully yet.

281. Erin R. - 4/2/2001 11:56:38 PM

Lighter skinned blacks in this country have traditionally had more options--this is nothing new.

My son is approximately 1/4 African-American. I often wonder how he will be perceived...to me he's just my son, but since he was born, strangers have made comments about his ethnic background. Not bad comments. But still.

Anyway, it just makes me wonder.

282. Erin R. - 4/2/2001 11:58:04 PM

I agree that eventually, many hispanic groups will be "white." I've seen it happening already.

283. wonkers2 - 4/3/2001 12:16:36 AM

Erin, We'll judge your son by the content of his character.

284. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 12:18:53 AM

One hopes.

285. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 12:26:10 AM

Mark my words, folks:

After beating Jack Nicklaus' career major win total at the 2011 U.S. Open, Tiger Woods will turn to politics, and get elected president in 2020.

(For the sake of diversity, he will pick Jorge P. Bush as his running mate.)

286. Stumbo - 4/3/2001 12:51:32 AM

... And he will serve two full terms in office, despite assassination attempts by 43 of JadeGold's 52,967 nephews twice removed.

287. ScottLoar - 4/3/2001 8:01:19 AM

Pogie's scenario seems correct.

288. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 9:26:11 PM

I have a couple of problems with that scenario:

1. "Race-mixing" has always been prevalent in the U.S. Why is it a big deal now?

2. Why is it that anyone has to be "default white?"

289. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:28:27 PM

Lots of forms with a race index on them now have 'White - Non-Hispanic' listed on them.

My guess is that Pogie's scenario is what's going to happen to a certain degree -- but not in America as a whole unified entity. Phenotypes that are culturally privileged in one area of the States will be second class in another. It will depend on what state you live in, and in some situations what city, whether you are what he'd call 'default white'.

My guess is that the break is going to go along skin color, lighter being more favored, because lightness of skin color has a pretty dramatic correlation with median income. Ethnic groups stereotypically perceived as being wealthy aren't exempt from being racially discriminated against -- American Jews would be a shining example. Still, money is power.

290. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:34:59 PM

In answer to Erin R.'s two statements:

'Race-mixing' (incidentally, a phrase I dislike because I usually hear white supremacists using it) isn't exactly widespread in America, and in parts of it it's still something that draws a lot of fire.


In an ideal world no one has to be default white. This is extremely far from being an ideal world. The concept exists because, well, people are notable for ingrouping and outgrouping people based on their evident culture and their distinguishable traits. There's never been a mixed society on the face of the Earth, as far as I know, which hasn't practiced some form of racial discrimination. It is regrettable and certainly to be checked at every opportunity but it is nevertheless real and here to stay.

291. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:39:06 PM

Why is it that anyone has to be "default white?"


I thought pogie's clarification made sense; namely, that it's not so much they'll be perceived as "white", but as "mainstream".

I have wondered for some time now if the primary problem with the continuing prejudice against black people hasn't a lot to do with their overrepresentation in the poor and the criminal class (as a percentage of population), as opposed to skin color and appearance.

If that representation were ever addressed, it would be interesting to see if we followed the "Brazil" model or not. The success of recent African immigrants that pogie mentions seems to suggest the possibility of it being otherwise, anyway.

292. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 10:39:21 PM

It may not be widespread from your standpoint, but it's always been quite common within the black community.

293. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 10:40:48 PM

Hm...blacks were vilified in this country before they had much opportunity to be overrepresented in the poor and criminal classes.

294. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:41:59 PM

It may not be widespread from your standpoint, but it's always been quite common within the black community.


Yeah, I remember when that Spike Lee movie came out--I'm sure it was old news to black people, but that was really the first time I'd realized that blacks still rated themselves by how "white" they looked.

295. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:49:07 PM

It may not be widespread from your standpoint, but it's always been quite common within the black community.

Probably. The mathematician in me feels compelled to add that that will always be the case in any population where blacks -- or any other ethnic group -- constitute 12% of the population, even assuming zero racial bias when it comes to selecting a spouse. Nine out of every ten potential spouses an African American can take will not be African American. One out of every ten potential spouses a Wasp can take will be African American.

And I was speaking from the perspective of America as a whole.

296. CalGal - 4/3/2001 10:51:31 PM

Hm...blacks were vilified in this country before they had much opportunity to be overrepresented in the poor and criminal classes.


Oh, of course. Good lord, I didn't mean to say otherwise. I am speaking more of the past 20-30 years. I'm also not pointing fingers--there are many reasons why blacks are overrepresented in the poor and the criminal class, and it's sure as hell not as simple as well, they're not working and they're breaking the law. It has a great deal to do with how the US handles poverty in general, white or black.

But the black middle class is doing extremely well in many ways, and by and large, the default assumptions about individual based on minority status start to fade or at least become countermanded as the group begins to work its way into the middle class.

However, this has not happened for blacks--I'm speaking of the stupid, yet painful, things, like women clutching their purse and panicking if a black man gets into the elevator, cab drivers (of any color) refusing to pick up black fares, neighborhoods converting to all black once a percentage of black residents move in, and so on.

Why, when this sort of thing doesn't happen for other minorities, once they start being well-represented in the middle and upper classes, as blacks are? Which is why I wonder about the over representation of blacks in the poor and criminal classes. It allows the stereotypes to persist, even if the majority of blacks don't fit the stereotype.

297. jexster - 4/3/2001 10:52:09 PM

Looneys to the Left of Me..Wingnuts to the Right..Into the Valley of Death!

This afternoon, my statistics professor instructor was trying to illustrate something called the chi-square test of statistical significance.

To do so he started with a hypothetical cross tabulation of grades (A-F) with gender where most of the males got A’s and B’s and most females got D’s and F’s.

First question he asked “Well just glancing at this table of a random sample of grades in my classes what does it appear to show before we calculate chi-square”


I blurt out “Well it shows that men are smarter than women!”



Of course, this did not go over well in a class of probably the most looney left politically correct majors at the University.



“NO! Its supposed to suggest gender bias in my grading!”



He had to let class out 15 minutes early.

298. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 10:52:28 PM

I'm suggesting that there are things you may not see, simply because you may not be immmersed in the culture.

299. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:53:10 PM

I'm trying to recall a time when African Americans , on average, occupied anything but the poorer tiers of our economic system. Trying and failing. If you can jog my memory I'd be grateful.

Granted, the roots of racism are not found in socioeconomic status, at least not to a large degree. For a long time non-whites were looked down upon as a result of spurious scientific claims that they were demonstrably inferior homo sapiens. Or they were the Devil's children, or they were heartless scum, or whatever. However, socioeconomic status has a way of lessening the effect of racism.

300. angel-five - 4/3/2001 10:55:22 PM

I'm suggesting that there are things you may not see, simply because you may not be immmersed in the culture.

What culture is it that you think I'm immersed in, out of curiosity?

301. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 10:59:08 PM

I honestly don't know. I'm just guessing you're not black, but of course I have no way of knowing.

I don't think there has ever been a time when blacks have not occupied the lowest economic tiers in the U.S.

302. angel-five - 4/3/2001 11:04:43 PM

I don't think there has ever been a time when blacks have not occupied the lowest economic tiers in the U.S.

That was my impression as well, which is why I cocked an eyebrow when you said that blacks were vilified before they had a chance to be overrepresented among the poor. No matter though.

303. CalGal - 4/3/2001 11:05:07 PM

I'm trying to recall a time when African Americans , on average, occupied anything but the poorer tiers of our economic system.

They haven't. Other way round. Asians and Hispanics have all experienced prejudice in years past, but once they got established and represented in the middle class and beyond, a lot of the prejudice disappears. It's not gone forever, but it is abated. Yet blacks have solid representation (I believe) in the middle and upper classes, but the prejudice is still there and still in full force. Why?

I suppose it is possible that it really does have to do with skin color, but Asians and Hispanics are both easily identifiable in appearance--they can't "pass" very readily. In fact, more blacks can "pass" than either of those two groups, I believe.

So it seems to me that, among all but your actual racists, there might be some other factor that causes the prejudice to continue.

Also, there is a difference between discrimination and racism. It doesn't feel any different to the victim, I'm sure, but when it comes to addressing it, the solutions are different. I consider racism to be something that overrides self-interest. Discrimination (or prejudice) is often caused by "reasonable" goals--even if they are incorrect, illogical or illegal. For example, cab drivers who refuse to pick up black fares because they're afraid of being mugged--that's discrimination. A cab driver who refuses to pick up a black fare without fear of mugging, who does so purely because he won't have someone black in his cab--that's racism.

304. CalGal - 4/3/2001 11:06:41 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, Angel--I thought that comment was directed at my post.

Nice to see you back, btw.

305. angel-five - 4/3/2001 11:07:47 PM

And you're right, I'm white as a lily. But you'd possibly be surprised as to the cultural milieu in which I find myself, which is of course why I said what I did...

306. Erin R. - 4/3/2001 11:10:54 PM

Oh, I see. What I meant was that during slavery, blacks didn't have much opportunity to be criminals. I could be wrong about this.

307. angel-five - 4/3/2001 11:14:14 PM

Thank you.

They haven't. Other way round. Asians and Hispanics have all experienced prejudice in years past, but once they got established and represented in the middle class and beyond, a lot of the prejudice disappears. It's not gone forever, but it is abated.

Asians (Another term I dislike, grouping all Asians together is like grouping Eastenders with Sicilians) are well established in the middle and upper class. I think it's much more arguable that African Americans and Hispanics are anything but tenuously established in the upper middle and upper class and strongly tend toward lower middle and below.

I do agree with your evident point, as it's one I just made -- I think money has a lot to do with it.

308. angel-five - 4/3/2001 11:20:32 PM

Well, slaves had lots of opportunity to be criminals, and took those opportunities. Of course, since a lot of those 'criminal' actions are extremely understandable given the social situation (it's a 'crime' for me to seek my freedom? The hell you say) you have to be careful what you call 'criminal' and what you don't.

A lot of the 'official' racism against slaves sprung from aforementioned spurious beliefs in their demonstrable inferiority. I.E. that black people were naturally lacking in morality and that were they not overseen they'd fall to banditry and savagery. Soooo the point is arguable.

309. sakonige - 4/3/2001 11:29:18 PM

If their racial admixture matters, why are they all collectively referred to as 'blacks'?

310. sakonige - 4/3/2001 11:30:00 PM

Want me to tell you?

311. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:30:30 PM

Actually, I'd say that racism as we understand it today really emerged in the first half of the 19th century, as the South sought to increasingly justify its slave society in the face of growing condemnation by Northerners and Europeans. It got another boost after the end of Reconstruction, as the Southern white oligarchy sought to revoke many of the newly attained rights of freed blacks.

The racism of the earlier 17th and 18th centuries were more analogous to that applied to all "savages". Slaves were counted as 1/3 of a free man in the Constitution precisely because they were "owned", and because to give Southern states full count of their residence would severely swing the balance of power in the newly created Congress toward their interests.

312. MsIvoryTower - 4/3/2001 11:33:16 PM

was more analogous...

313. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:01:16 AM

Racism as we know it today isn't new at all in my opinion. Msit has the right of American racism -- although I'd also add that the surge in racism after the reconstruction also had something to do with the African American migration to urban areas -- but I'd dispute that 'racism' as we know it is the product of anything that happened in the South. To pull one extremely salient example out of thin air... let's look at Anti-Semitism in Europe in the last millennium. Jews weren't lumped in as 'savages' but were disparaged on entirely different terms.

314. Stumbo - 4/4/2001 12:03:13 AM

I thought it was 3/5, MsIT?

"1/3." Sheesh. They weren't that racist, dammit!

315. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:03:22 AM

"Jews weren't lumped in as 'savages' but were disparaged on entirely different terms."

They were disparaged as devils and vampires.

316. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 12:07:00 AM

Wasn't in the constitution was it, although I think it was 1/3. Wasn't that the Missouri Compromise?

317. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:08:37 AM

Missouri Compromise was that Missouri would be a slave state and that Maine would be admitted to the Union as a free state, I thought.

318. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:08:50 AM

And it's three fifths.

319. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:10:45 AM

Ace:

Yep, that'd be a part of it. Was just reading something interesting on the origins of the fables that Jews stole Christian youth for blood sacrifice in their 'secret' rites.

And of course there were the objections to the 'cold, calculating, ruthless and rich' Jew so well known as the Shylock stereotype.

320. Shannon - 4/4/2001 12:11:30 AM

It was 3/5, according to a quick web search I just did. I'd actually thought it was 2/5.

321. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:11:33 AM

although I'd also add that the surge in racism after the reconstruction also had something to do with the African American migration to urban areas

Not to quibble, but this occurred primarily in the early part of the 20th century and not directly after the end of reconstruction.

but I'd dispute that 'racism' as we know it is the product of anything that happened in the South.

Oh, I think the roots of it are clearly connected to the rationalizations and justifications for first maintaining the slave system prior to the Civil War, and then later toward rationalizing why they should continue to be a separate "caste".

Let's not forget that the emerging medical research on race differences in the early 20th century took place simultaneous to the great black migrations northward; nor that much of the research was conducted by non-Southerners. I take this as evidence of the powerful ideology that Southerners perpetuated regarding the inferiority of blacks for most of the 19th century.

322. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:13:02 AM

"Was just reading something interesting on the origins of the fables that Jews stole Christian youth for blood sacrifice in their 'secret' rites. "

Was just reading? This is as old as the hills.

Jews were said to butcher Christian babies to use their blood in baking their bread.

323. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:13:39 AM

Ya, 3/5 is correct.

1/3 --- 3/5.... at least the 3 was correct.

I believe the number arrived at was the subject of much heated debate during the constitutional convention. Southerners wanted slaves counted as full men for census purposes; northerners didn't want them counted at all.

324. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:14:39 AM

"I take this as evidence of the powerful ideology that Southerners perpetuated regarding the inferiority of blacks for most of the 19th century."

Silly. Northerners thought blacks inferior as well. Northerners simply didn't think they should be enslaved.

You are attempting to pin this on the proverbial "Other."

Northerners, Europeans, hell, other Africans... all considered blacks (or some blacks) racially inferior.

325. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:15:08 AM

"I believe the number arrived at was the subject of much heated debate during the constitutional convention. Southerners wanted slaves counted as full men for census purposes; northerners didn't want them counted at all."

Correct.

326. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:15:09 AM

Then explain anti-Semitism or caste racism in India or Japan, all of which well predate the question of American slavery and its messy resolution.

Re: the migration

Yes.

327. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:18:04 AM

The compromise about 3/5ths is called, simply, "The 3/5ths Compromise."

As Angel said, the Missouri Compromise occurred in the early 1840's and concerned the simultaneous admission of Missouri and Maine. I believe California (a free state) was an important consideration in this horse-trading as well.

328. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:18:23 AM

Was just reading something interesting on the origins of the fables that Jews stole Christian youth for blood sacrifice in their 'secret' rites. "
Was just reading? This is as old as the hills.
Jews were said to butcher Christian babies to use their blood in baking their bread.

Well, I see my absence hasn't sharpened your reading skills, Ace. The tales are old as the hills, 'tis true. I was just reading something interesting about their genesis. I believe it was in Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell, which is a smashing read.

329. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:19:31 AM

Ca. might not have been directly involved in the Missouri Compromise; but it might have been a factor in that a free state had just recently been admitted, and southernors didn't want to lose too much parity.

Somehow, Ca. was a factor or consideration.

330. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:19:34 AM

Ca. might not have been directly involved in the Missouri Compromise; but it might have been a factor in that a free state had just recently been admitted, and southernors didn't want to lose too much parity.

Somehow, Ca. was a factor or consideration.

331. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:20:16 AM

I believe it had to do with the fact that part of California is south of the Mason Dixon line.

332. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:20:52 AM

The southern part, if I'm not mistaken.

333. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:23:30 AM

Silly. Northerners thought blacks inferior as well. Northerners simply didn't think they should be enslaved.

I disagree they thought blacks inferior for the same reasons. Initially both sets of settlers thought all savages were inferior, as in "uncivilized" and uncouth. The notion that they were inferior because of their "race", or skin color, was not introduced until the rationalizations for maintaining slavery emerged in the first and second quarters of the 19th century.

These rationalizations did find their way up North, and by the end of reconstruction, many Northerners held similar views to Southerners regarding the "racial" inferiority of blacks (as opposed to their inferiority of culture, beliefs and development).

Northerners, Europeans, hell, other Africans... all considered blacks (or some blacks) racially inferior.

Certainly by the beginning of the 20th century most white Americans believed blacks to be racially inferior, but what do you mean that other Africans believed this?

My understanding is that Africans enslaved other tribes for similar reasons that the ancient Greeks and Romans enslaved populations; for their labor and to expand the slaveholding society's power and status among others. If you know otherwise, please expand your point.

334. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:24:32 AM

And then there was The Great Compromise, which I believe resulted in the bicameral Congress (one chamber by population, the other with a fixed number of senators per state).

335. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:25:17 AM

"I disagree they thought blacks inferior for the same reasons. Initially both sets of settlers thought all savages were inferior, as in "uncivilized" and uncouth. The notion that they were inferior because of their "race", or skin color, was not introduced until the rationalizations for maintaining slavery emerged in the first and second quarters of the 19th century. "

This is purest nonsense, MsIT.

336. Jon Ferguson - 4/4/2001 12:26:07 AM

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Funny we both thought it was 1/3, then as I was researching it, I thought 'maybe it was 2/3.' 3/5 didn't ring any bells at all.

337. LimeGirl - 4/4/2001 12:26:27 AM

I find the whole discrimination and perceived discrimination topic very interesting. I'm always a little doubting when I hear minority groups say that they were discriminated against in small ways, like an article about racism on campus where a guy said that he was discriminated against because someone didn't hold a door open for him. And I think that the reason someone didn't hold a door open for him could have nothing to do with his skin color, and he has no way of knowing that.

I also feel somewhat intimidated, I guess is the word, by groups of minorities. Not scared for life, limb or property. But more uncertain of myself, more concerned that I'm going to say the wrong thing, and feeling like they'd just rather be left alone, and like I shouldn't bother them by saying hi, or whatever. More self-conscious. And I'm not exactly outgoing to begin with!

There was an interesting series in the Seattle Times a while back, called White Girl? (Here) I think. And it was about 2 cousins, one whom considered herself black, and one whom considered herself white. It seemed to me, from the article, that there is a strong attachment to the black culture/community that can trump other things. And that by trying to be too "white" brought disdain from members of that community.

Which might explain the way Asians are quicker to "assimilate", because their goal is to get ahead, while it seems like the black goal is more to belong to their community. And also explain the difference between recent African immigrants, who would be coming here to get ahead, and wouldn't have those ties to an existing community here.

338. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:27:25 AM

Ms,

Go read the Lincoln-Douglas debates and you'll get clued in pretty fast to what mainstream Northerners thought about blacks.

"Benighted savages," Lincoln says.

It's an idiotic conceit that these attitudes were "concocted" by Southerners as some sort of Public-Relations campaign.

339. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 12:28:11 AM

Wanna be my slave, Ace?

340. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:28:15 AM

And just for the record, the 3/5ths figure is in the Constitution itself, in Art.I section 2.

341. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:29:21 AM

Cellar,

Pass my script along to an agent and we'll talk.

342. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 12:30:07 AM

LOL!

343. Cellar Door - 4/4/2001 12:31:04 AM

I was thinking of reworking "Mandingo" for whites.

You'd get to be ravished by Brandy.

344. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:31:21 AM

Ace

Either you're history is off or you've not clarified your time references. I speak of the 17th and 18th century attitudes and you rebut with the Lincoln-Douglas debates which took place in the mid-19th century.

There is little evidence that prior to the 19th century, white americans saw blacks as "racially" inferior in the way we mean it today.

345. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:33:12 AM

"I speak of the 17th and 18th century attitudes and you rebut with the Lincoln-Douglas debates which took place in the mid-19th century. "

And you missed my "saving clause," in which I said you'd have to be daft to imagine that these deep-rooted attitudes were concocted in the 19th Century by a southern slave-holder Public Relations campaign.

346. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:33:18 AM

Northern perceptions of the nature of black slaves were rather varied, just as the perception of African Americans varies now. Ace is going a bit too far, or perhaps it's just Ace generality shorthand and I'm out of practice with it, when he says the Northerners though the slaves were inferior. That was a common viewpoint but not by any means a unified one and there was significant opposition to it.

347. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:35:30 AM

Oh, please, Angel-Five.

Yes, of course. For god's sakes.

It's like I say "Nazis didn't like the Jews" and Angel-Five pipes up, "Well, not EVERY Nazi didn't like the Jews. Some pretended to hate Jews as a career booster."

348. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:41:32 AM

It's an idiotic conceit that these attitudes were "concocted" by Southerners as some sort of Public-Relations campaign.

Well if you want to reduce it to a public relations campaign, be my guest. I rather think the whole dynamic was more complex and subtler than this. I'd suggest there was an ideological framework that rose to justify the continued exploitation of blacks to the benefit of southern economic interests.

Perhaps you don't know the actual production figures of the pre-civil war south, but they generated a wealth that was equal to, and at times greater than, the economic wealth of the north. The southern economies were worth something over $350 million annually.

You think they wanted to give this up for the sake of Northern morality? Pshaw, they saw this as a concerted effort to undermine their economic and policical clout. They fought back with deliberate rationalizations and arguments that increasingly relied on the inability of blacks to live as free men, and more importantly, to assume the rigors of citizenship.

349. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:42:52 AM

Ace, your generalities in premises have this odd way of creeping into generalities of conclusion, and it's generally best to check you before you get the bit in your teeth and tear off into the wild blue yonder.

But I made the statement not to pick so much as to note that there was a very notable segment of the population for whom abolition wasn't coupled with paternalism or a simple idea that even though blacks were inferior they shouldn't be slaves. To ignore it is pointless when we're talking about the formation of racism which arises as a social phenomenon and is shaped by give and take within the society.

350. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:44:57 AM

"I'd suggest there was an ideological framework that rose to justify the continued exploitation of blacks to the benefit of southern economic interests. "

No, they enslaved blacks because they thought they were "inferior."

They did not, for example, enslave the Irish, though they probably could have. They did not enslave the Chinese, though it wouldn't have been horribly difficult to kidnap several thousand Chinese from China.

You are postulating that racism was a public-relations scheme concocted to justify slavery. That's the silliest horseshit I ever heard. American slavery occurred *because* of a belief that blacks were inferior. It wasn't concocted after-the-fact.

351. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:46:32 AM

angel-five,

and I spoke of "MAINSTREAM Northern attitudes," not UNIVERSAL Northern attitudes. Go check the tape.

When two maistream Northerner candidates for President are both firmly convinced of the inferiority of blacks, I take that to mean this was in fact a *mainstream* Northern attitude, if not a universal one.

352. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:47:36 AM

And you missed my "saving clause," in which I said you'd have to be daft to imagine that these deep-rooted attitudes were concocted in the 19th Century by a southern slave-holder Public Relations campaign.

Nonsense. You have no saving clause. Your position is not supported by any historical analysis of slaves in either the ancient societies or as practiced by most of Europe and America in the early years of colonization.

Nor were the attitudes "deeply rooted" other than a general sense that all savages and non-European cultures were inferior. Europeans were nothing if not ethnocentric, and believed anyone not of their own culture were inferior.

This level of discrimination is unlike the kind that emerged in this country toward black slaves, and later black free men.

353. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:48:49 AM

You are postulating that racism was a public-relations scheme concocted to justify slavery. That's the silliest horseshit I ever heard. American slavery occurred *because* of a belief that blacks were inferior. It wasn't concocted after-the-fact.

It is indeed silly. It, however, isn't what MsIT was proposing -- she's acknowledged that racism existed beforehand and derived from precisely what you're speaking of.

Granted, I'm not sure I buy her point, but you've misapprehended that point, I believe.

354. angel-five - 4/4/2001 12:53:36 AM

You did say mainstream later on, , in Message # 338, true. But not at first, in Message # 324, where you used the word 'all' and prompted my response. Creeping generalities indeed.

355. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 12:54:13 AM

No, they enslaved blacks because they thought they were "inferior."

Jaysus, who denied this? My point was that racism as we know it today was not part of this belief. Yes, early americans thought blacks inferior, but they also thought indians were inferior, as they did any other "savage" culture. This is entirely different than the racism that became personalized to blacks.

And again, your arguments are weak.

We didn't enslave the Irish because they were essentially from Europe. There are actually accounts of chinese slaves in the West and elsewhere prior to the civil war, but the migration of Chinese in this country occurred primarily after the war, when it would have been illegal to do so. For that matter, the majority of the Irish migrated after the civil war as well.

356. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 12:58:53 AM

"My point was that racism as we know it today was not part of this belief. "

Your point seems to be that attitudes about race were fairly "enlightened, progressive, and modernish" before the 19th century, but then a PR/ideological push by Southerners made racism more virulent and race-attitudes more "backwards."


Were we to graph it on a chart, with "better racism" at bottom and "worse racism" at top, we would find (according to you) a middling plateau of "not so bad racism" through the 17th and 18th C which then spikes into "bad racism territory" in the 19th Century, and then begins to trend downward after 1960.

I understand.

And I repeat:


Silly.

357. angel-five - 4/4/2001 1:01:48 AM

Your point seems to be that attitudes about race were fairly "enlightened, progressive, and modernish" before the 19th century, but then a PR/ideological push by Southerners made racism more virulent and race-attitudes more "backwards."

?

just in case you're wondering, MsIT, you're not the only one who's going 'What the hell is he getting this now?'

358. AceofSpades - 4/4/2001 1:04:15 AM

"Progressive," relatively speaking.

I mean to convey that Ms thinks that Europeans looked down on blacks, just a little bit but not too much and not more than they looked down on anyone else, before Southerners cooked up a virulent brew called "Modern Racism."

359. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 1:04:44 AM

Your point seems to be that attitudes about race were fairly "enlightened, progressive, and modernish" before the 19th century, but then a PR/ideological push by Southerners made racism more virulent and race-attitudes more "backwards."

Bullshit. I don't think early attitudes about inferior cultures and peoples were enlightened, just different. And because they were different they were less enduring for those who were deemed inferior.

And if you want to doubt my argument, then I suggest you read something more historical than the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.

360. angel-five - 4/4/2001 1:10:25 AM

Oh, I understand what's happening now. Msit is trying to get me to agree with her by getting Ace to argue against her. And it's almost working.

Ace: You're imputing value judgments, as is your wont, into what Miss Texas is saying. Her argument, if I understand it correctly, is that American racism is a product of those times, shaped and characterized by the events surrounding American slavery and conducted on a playing field dictated by our own recent history. Not that it's more benign or malignant now or then.

Once again, it's not an argument I entirely buy, but it does have some merit.

361. angel-five - 4/4/2001 1:10:50 AM

I wonder where she cribbed it.

(chuckling)

362. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 1:12:12 AM

smart ass

I don't need to crib arguments....

363. MsIvoryTower - 4/4/2001 1:12:52 AM

and I'm going to bed.

364. angel-five - 4/4/2001 1:14:57 AM

Not me. but i DO think I'm going to log out. Lates.

365. Jenerator - 4/4/2001 11:20:32 AM

[A5, sorry to hear about what's going on. Best wishes.]

366. vw - 4/4/2001 1:42:53 PM

From todays AP news wire:

Women still make less, survey says

367. vw - 4/5/2001 8:40:30 PM

Let's catch up on what are friends in SCOTUS have been up to recently:

Justices to Revisit Affirmative Action in a Test Case for Bush

High Court To Review Executing Retarded

Court Curbs Drug Tests During Pregnancy

368. CalGal - 4/5/2001 8:58:12 PM

The survey is flawed, apparently? In what way?

I find it on its face to be quite reasonable--women of equal tenure in the same job make 89 cents on a man's dollar. Not perfect, but decent. Figure that women are terrible at asking for money and probably as a group work fewer hours, it's conceivable that very little of it is discrimination.

It would be interesting to see more data on this group alone--what were their starting salaries, what were their reviews, and so on.

The other two comparisons are pretty much irrelevant, unless women are barred from making choices. But of course, the one that is played up is the one that says that they make 72 cents on the dollar.

On the AA test case--well, state affirmative action is dead, or will be as soon as Connerly gets to each state; I was just saying last week that the only AA that hadn't been attacked recently was federal set aside programs. And here we are.

369. Cellar Door - 4/5/2001 9:01:24 PM

"Not perfect, but decent."

ROTFALMAO!!!!!!

370. CalGal - 4/5/2001 9:11:54 PM

Considering the handwringing wails of "70 cents on the dollar", which is completely inaccurate, it's quite decent.

371. vw - 4/6/2001 9:15:20 AM

Economist Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum, said women often choose to take jobs that pay less for flexibility and time for children and family.

Though I believe this dynamic exists, what I do notice is that the sentence is rarely completed with the phrase “and women do this more than men”. And that is the methodology and numbers I would dearly love to see. How do they ascertain what choices men and women are making when they choose a job? How do they measure the number and value of choices they did not make?

Anecdotally, I made the choice that Pfotenhauer refers to. I didn’t pursue the Ph.D. that ultimately would have made me more financially secure because I needed to make more money in the short-term. So I took a job with higher pay than what I was making without the degree but that would never lead to the kind of money I would have ultimately made with the Ph.D.

372. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 9:32:18 AM

How do they ascertain what choices men and women are making when they choose a job? How do they measure the number and value of choices they did not make?

There are data bases that examine choice of college majors among students and these reveal some of the information for the first question. They typically ask questions like:

"How many years do you expect to work in the labor market?"
"Do you intend to work after marriage?"
"Do you intend to work after starting a family?"
"How many hours a week do you intend to work in your job?"

stuff like that...

Then there is the actual data on hours worked, industry and occupational choices made by men and women currently in the labor market. This mostly comes from census data, but there are also other data sets that measure similar kinds of "attitudes, aspirations and commitments to the labor market". These include the National Longitudinal Survey of Young Workers, and the NLS of Mature Men and Women, both of which have been a source of labor economists research on this topic for many years (sociologists as well, I might add).

You can take comfort in knowing that you are not alone in your choices vw.

373. vw - 4/6/2001 10:29:35 AM

Thanks for the info MIT. I was hoping to spend some time later today looking into where those numbers came from and you gave me a big jump on doing so.

374. vw - 4/6/2001 10:29:44 AM

You can take comfort in knowing that you are not alone in your choices vw.

You know, it’s never something I felt the need to be reassured about. I had two kids to support. Finishing the degree meant relocating, which meant taking them away from Gramma and Poppy, their father and their friends. Finishing the degree meant a couple more years trying to raise two girls on a limited income.

Taking the job rather than finishing my degree was necessary and I never stick at performing what is practical. Especially when what is necessary is predicated by the consequences of my own choices.

WRT the idea that women as a group are not as aggressive in their requests/demands/negotiations for salary. Again, I wonder if this is influenced by what segment of the population we are looking at. I can understand a dynamic where the 2nd wage earner might not be as aggressive in acquiring higher wages if the trade-off was flexibility and hours worked consideration. So I wonder if women who are primary wage earners are different in both approach and result.

Again, I know anecdotally, I may have traded off long-term earning power for immediate stability, but within that job I was tremendously aggressive in negotiating wages. I went in with the attitude that I was better-educated then most other applicants and that I had two kids to raise. The result was that I was the highest paid person in that position in the company, and I continued that trend with every promotion I received.

I believe that women are fully capable of acting as self-interested agents and in fact do so. Therefore, I suspect that the gender aspect of the wage gap would disappear when and if we see more women in the workforce population that consider their income the primary family support and more men that consider their income secondary and are more interested in flexibility, etc.

375. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 10:48:41 AM

Again, I know anecdotally, I may have traded off long-term earning power for immediate stability,...

Yes, this is called the cost-benefit analysis wrt human capital investments. Women typically choose to invest in lower levels of graduate degrees then men, and there are several factors that have been identified as influencing the analysis.

1. Lower benefit streams from such investments due to the present perceived wage gap;
2. Lower long-term labor force commitments by women - this means that many women are unsure about their willingness to remain in the LF throughout their lives, regardless of what happens eventually;
3. Lower geographic mobility due to cultural and familial influences;

to name just a few.

The choices of people regarding human capital investments, labor force participation and commitments, occupation and industry of work are in constant flux, and even as I write, there are marginal changes occuring in the trends we've observed over the last half century.

Indeed, while the data measuring women's labor continue to show consistent trends overall, the degree to which certain characteristics remain robust has changed substantially since the post-WWII era. I expect that some of these nagging factors that continue to be noted in the data will eventually tip completely.

376. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 11:08:23 AM

Therefore, I suspect that the gender aspect of the wage gap would disappear when and if we see more women in the workforce population that consider their income the primary family support and more men that consider their income secondary and are more interested in flexibility, etc.

Well women scholars have been arguing this for a while now, but I'm not so sure its that easy. While cultural changes will certainly help women narrow the wage gap (and already have had a substantial influence on women's labor force behaviors), there are some factors influencing the equation that simply aren't that easy to address.

For one thing, women still face biological constraints that fundamentally influence their choice of careers, their ability to participate in the labor market, and their work force patterns.

Second, employers are still organized around an essentially male work force. By this I mean that they institutionally arrange the flow of workers in their organizations according to age. They prefer young workers for entry level positions, prefer more mature adults for management positions, and tend to still view older workers as obsolete and less productive. This follows the classic life cycle of males, who tended to enter the labor market very early, build skills and stability as employees as they matured, and became less productive as their labor-leisure costs increased in old age.

Women need a different life-cycle of work. They are biologically forced to take a different path, and research on the productivity of women workers doesn't support the classic pattern noted in males; that is, they remain more committed to their jobs as they age then less committed, and they are willing to work harder as older workers than men.

Firms, however, haven't adjusted their tastes for workers to benefit women's life cycle work patterns, and that will change much more slowly than women's taste for work.

377. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 11:17:54 AM

Btw, one more depressing thought:

Although women have increased their labor force participation rates and their commitment to full-time work over the last 30+ years, attitudinal surveys of young women on college campuses still reveal that a substantial porportion of young women still want to exit the labor market to raise their children. They want to marry men who will support a family, and they are ambivalent regarding their long-term labor market participation.

After 30 odd years of a rather high divorce rate, of children being raised in single parent homes, of women raising children on their own, young college women still think they don't need to plan for their own life-long labor force participation.

378. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 11:18:14 AM

toys

379. CalGal - 4/6/2001 11:59:36 AM

Women need a different life-cycle of work.

I really disagree with this, although I generally agree with much of what you and vw have said.

They don't need a different life-cycle of work; I think they need to fit into the one that is already there. For one thing, as your extremely depressing 377 points out, many women get divorced and end up raising their kids on less money than they were planning on. If we give women a different life cycle for work, we are only feeding the notion that they don't really need to focus on income growth while they are having kids. And, of course, exactly the opposite is true.

Again, I wonder if this is influenced by what segment of the population we are looking at. I can understand a dynamic where the 2nd wage earner might not be as aggressive in acquiring higher wages if the trade-off was flexibility and hours worked consideration.

That might be some of it--or most of it. Speaking only of my own experience, I have not seen any distinction based on marital status or income responsibility. If anything, I see it as a difference in outlook. I was committed to ensuring I was well-paid, whether I was a single secretary, a married (and lower-income) programmer, and a single mother consultant. I know a few women who have similar outlooks; some are married, some are single.

380. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:05:23 PM

I believe that women are fully capable of acting as self-interested agents and in fact do so.

I agree. But I also think that women still view marriage as their best shot at security, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if self-reliance and complete autonomy in finances (whether in or out of a marriage) is seen as somehow interfering with that goal. Which would mean that their often boneheaded stupidity about income and work decisions could be explained as acting in their own self-interest.

381. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:30:12 PM

They don't need a different life-cycle of work; I think they need to fit into the one that is already there.

Need was the wrong word, I should have said they have a different work life-cycle pattern then men. The different biological constraints women operate under also make it highly unlikely that they can ever fully fit within the one that's already in place, which is based on completely on male work patterns.

Now, will women continue to increase their work commitments to become more like male workers? Yes, they will. Will the vast majority of women do so? Highly unlikely because of the differential costs men and women face in making their career and work force choices. You can argue women should be more like men in the work force, but men don't 1) bear children; 2) bear primary care responsibilities in the majority of two-parent households; 3) bear the majority of domestic duties in two-parent households.

Quite simply the costs to women are much higher to remain strongly committed to work over family in our society. This will continue to exert pressure on women to look to the joint earning capacity in marriage as a mechanism for raising children rather than their own independent earning capacities.

382. Shannon - 4/6/2001 12:37:55 PM

. You can argue women should be more like men in the work force, but men don't 1) bear children; 2) bear primary care responsibilities in the majority of two-parent households; 3) bear the majority of domestic duties in two-parent households.

Only the first of those is biological. I agree that in general, all are true more often than not. But I don't think the workforce needs to change so that women can continue to do most of the work at home.

383. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:48:56 PM

The workforce doesn't need to change at all. Nor do firms need to change their demand for certain kinds of workers. I just don't think we'll ever see women in the labor force to the same extent or with the same work patterns as men to the point that these observed differences in wages will be eliminated without any government interference.

In other words, the wage differences may capture some reminants of the demand for male workers over females by employers based soley on discriminatory attitudes, but this is really a minor element of the wage gap now, I think.

The primary cause of the wage gap now is the continued differences between men and women in the amount, duration and type of labor they are willing to supply to the labor market, which is influenced by the different biological and cultural constraints women operate within. In other words, the market is pretty efficient at this point with regard to wage setting.

384. CalGal - 4/6/2001 12:49:16 PM

The only one of your three points that matters, really, is #1. #2 and #3 occur in large part because women choose to do them and are expected to do them, and much of the choice and expectation is because women make less money. Very circular. The expectation is there, of course, even when the woman is devoted equally to career. But those women will just have to get over that expectation, especially since so often it is imposed not by their husband, but by others.

Quite simply the costs to women are much higher to remain strongly committed to work over family in our society.

I disagree. The costs to their children and themselves are much higher so long as they remain committed to family first. Keeping in mind that no one should be committed to work over family; ideally they should be peers.

It is certainly easier for women to opt out, and lord knows society is prepared to excuse them. That's why I think the best fix is to make the costs for not putting their income first be significant and absolute--and that ties back into many of my opinions on divorce law.

The changes in divorce law originally were what caused many women to get into the workplace whether they "needed" to or not. They might still be making poor decisions about their income, but they certainly are at least aware that they are at risk.

Divorce law could continue to drive women's economic decisions, if they were solely responsible for their children post-divorce. I also think that making divorce more punishing for men--not financially, because they can always get out of that, but in terms of their required commitment to their children after divorce--would go a long way towards changing men's amiability about having kids in bad situations.

385. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 12:54:42 PM

and much of the choice and expectation is because women make less money.

I'm not so convinced of this. Over the last 20 odd years I've seen a cultural backlash against women who choose to work over primary maintainance of their family. I think many young women are caught between a rock and a hard place these days.

But those women will just have to get over that expectation, especially since so often it is imposed not by their husband, but by others.

I don't know how true this is. I do know that significant differences in attitudes about a woman's role in the family exists by SES, and that you can't make blanket statements about these attitudes that fit for all men or all women.

386. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:02:03 PM

I always get frustrated when this issue comes up because I don't buy that there is no discrimination against women in hiring and pay....but I'm unable to support it as the articles/studies I've seen in the past are no where to be found when I need them....like an article years back in the Economist that showed that women had to publish twice as much men in more prestigious publications to get the same recognition and research grants....like an article showing that even women who succeeded very well in business, well enough to become board members, were still side-lined into the softer PR functions on board committees and not in the harder strategy/finance areas....like a study done before the one mentioned above that showed that single, childless women with continuous working lives and equivalent training still made less than their male counterparts....and that marriage and family works favorably for males' careers and unfavorably for womens' careers...and even an anecdote about someone who changed genders from male to female and ended up taking a pay cut even though s/he was clearly the same person with the same skills, work history, etc.

But since I can't lay my hands on nary a one, I'll shut up...but if I find them again....

387. CalGal - 4/6/2001 1:04:29 PM

I agree that the attitudes aren't consistent across SES. Also, you speak of "cultural backlash"--I agree, to a certain extent. Likewise, have you noticed the plethora of movies with single moms working as strippers, "exotic dancers", or some other sleazy job and having it be presented as honorable? That's one of the reasons I watch Judging Amy--look, a single mom who had other options than Hooters! But see, when she's in that kind of job, you just know that she'll be giving it up when the hero marries her. So she was working, but it's not as if she planned it. She did it because she had to, poor thing.

But so what? In the scheme of things, women will have to learn how to get over that. Is the cultural backlash hurting them? Has it caused them to suffer in the workplace or increased the divorce rate?

Read any article or book about women and it will always focus on what others think. I mean, who the fuck cares? When did what others think of you become more important than ensuring the well-being of your children?

Society is always going to pressure people to do what makes them comfortable, and it's up to those people to a) get the laws to support their choices and b) go ahead and make the right choices, regardless of what people think. It is not surprising that society as a whole is more comfortable with the illusion that women are better off at home. What surprises me is that this expectation is presented as a valid reason for women to make idiotic choices in support of that expectation.

(I'm not directin my sarcasm at you; just the situation in general)

388. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 1:05:20 PM

Wrt biological constraints, I've basically avoided the number one reason I think women will not abandon looking to secure good marriages early in life as a means of future security,. Women have a much narrower window of opportunity to attract male partners than visa versa. Males can work like crazy as young adults, can put their careers first until they establish their high earning capacity. If this results in failed marriages, it still doesn't preclude them from finding other mates with a high degree of success. This is not the case for women.

Another depressing reality.

389. CalGal - 4/6/2001 1:08:55 PM

Women have a much narrower window of opportunity to attract male partners than visa versa.

Yep.

Again, that's why I favor making divorce--in fact, just having children--far more onerous on men than it is now. "Onerous" in that they will not be expected to write checks, but provide an equal amount of care and time and commitment.

390. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:09:14 PM

Stories about Sandra Day O'connor, graduating first from her law class at Stanford (ahead of Rehnquist) could only get a legal secretarial position out of college. Yeah, yeah, that was a long time ago, but do you suppose that all vestiges of gender discrimination have magically disappeared since then? I don't.

Just like Tiger Woods who only a few years ago was breaking color barriers at some country clubs...and the recent news story about a FL town that still practiced separate but "equal".

It doesn't disappear...it becomes less blatant, harder to prove and a lot more insidious...even if socially less acceptable.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist....instead of 11 cents per hour being acceptable, why does it exist at all? Anyone get a haircut lately? My husband's barber still charges him $10 and women $20 for a plain old haircut...same time, same stylist, and in fact his takes a lot more skill to cut than mine.

391. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:09:38 PM

Ooops.Sorry. I forgot I was going to shut up.
I'm done.

392. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 1:11:16 PM

Thoughtful

Oh I don't mean to minimize the effects of discrimination on women's wages and career paths, I just don't think it accounts for the majority of the observed wage gap. No research I've seen taken seriously in the last 15 years places the discrimination effect at much above 10% of the observed wage difference.

Do we know how much the factors you noted has on the long term committment of women to the labor market? No, I don't think so, not quantitatively, although women scholars have been speculating on this for a long time. Qualitatively there's some support for it as well, but we've been unable to capture any systematic quantitative effects of many of the factors you note.

In any case, I really believe that overt discrimination by employers has dwindled away, and now we're dealing with the likes of statistical discrimination on the demand side and women's tastes and preferences on the supply side.

393. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 1:14:57 PM

And Thoughtful

You know I spent years committed to research on women's labor, and explanations for the observed wage gap, I gave it up out of frustration and out of a need to get away from such a depressing line of research.

I should also modify my final comment; while I think overt discrimination has dwindled in importance, I don't think it's entirely been eliminated as a factor....

394. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 1:18:28 PM

And that's why it's going to be veryinteresting to see how the current administration, with its stone-cold racist Attorney General, is going to function. They have the beltway sewed up, and their media lackeys are in place. But the actual country is moving in a different direction.

"All Politics is Local" was never more true than it is today.

395. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:21:51 PM

Msit, I guess we disagree then...I will accept that it has lessened, but not that it has disappeared to insignificance. 10% is not nothing, and that's across the same job function which excludes "glass ceiling" effects. I think there's a reason self-employment has grown rapidly among working women that is more than just "flexible hours" or "work at home" opportunities....I think there's a reason discrimination suits against even brokerage firms where measures of success are quantitative (who brings in the $$) have been successful...I think there's a reason even large firms continue to be hit with and lose sexual harrassment suits as it reflects the core beliefs on the part of management about it's female workers, and those core beliefs are also reflected in the salary structure.

Heck, I remember during the 90-91 downturn how much more successful women and especially women of color were at finding work --because they were less expensive...though no one said as much.

396. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:32:34 PM

and perhaps I'm just surprised that all those other factors would explain why a woman with a master's degree makes a median income of $36,888 while a man with an associate's degree makes almost the same at $35,962 and a bach. degree makes $45,749.

399. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 1:37:46 PM

Heck, I remember during the 90-91 downturn how much more successful women and especially women of color were at finding work -- because they were less expensive...though no one said as much.

Oh yes, the wage differential certainly is a two-edged sword.

Wrt the issues you note, I should clarify that the measurement of discrimination effects at this point is limited by data. We can't go much further in isolating the effects of indirect discrimination, such as the kind you note, without better information collection within firms. I don't need to tell you how unlikely it is we'll get this information.

We're stuck now with relying on qualitative data to tell the story, and, as I'm sure you know, it can always be challenged on its limitations wrt generalization.

In fact, the most frustrating aspect of research in this area is how imprecise any analysis is, and how easy it is to dismiss any discrimination effects as simply a matter of either lack of data or problems with modeling. Lack of data remains the primary reason we can't move much more in isolating any effects however.

and perhaps I'm just surprised that all those other factors would explain why a woman with a master's degree makes a median income of $36,888 while a man with an associate's degree makes almost the same at $35,962 and a bach. degree makes $45,749.

Field of study remains the single most important factor in explaining this wage differential, with experience and hours worked per week following a close second.

403. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 1:50:59 PM

Field of study remains the single most important factor in explaining this wage differential...

I don't doubt that. Let calgal call me chicken or foolish, but I can remember thinking seriously about going into engineering and then deciding against it. Why? Maybe it was the male engineers I knew telling me it was not the place for me...but mostly it was the fact that I held as a core belief that I dare not enter such a male-dominated field unless I was damn sure I would excel at it. I'm sure many of the boys who opted for that line of study were ambivalent about it, but I as a female felt I couldn't afford to be.

404. CalGal - 4/6/2001 2:24:28 PM

I think 10% is about right as a differential, accounting for some discrimination, some poor negotiation skills, some lack of priority on income generation (women valuing flexibility over advancement, etc).

I think there is a very logical reason for some level of discrimination. After all, most people know why women only make 72 cents of the male dollar, and they know why. So if you have a choice of hiring someone in their mid-20s for a career-oriented position, and it's between a man and a woman, who would you figure is going to be more likely to work less hours, take more time off, move into a less demanding career path, or quit altogether?

Women don't generally quit or cut back because they feel discriminated against--they quit or cut back because it's easier than the alternative. Many women quit work or work part-time because they can, not because of any overwhelming need to focus on family.

So even those scumbags at various large corporations who get sued for treating women like sex objects and baby machines are really doing nothing more than women themselves do, even if they are cruder about it.

405. CalGal - 4/6/2001 2:27:53 PM

That is not to say I think that sexual discrimination should be allowed. But let's not pretend it's some white man clique trying to keep the girls out. Employers are required not to discriminate, but at the same time they know realistically that chances are the guy will be more motivated and committed than the woman is. That could lead to the sort of subtle discrimination that would account for a percentage of that gap.

Women, far more than men, enjoy the best of both worlds: the ability to choose a career, work and thrive, or the ability to marry, stay home, and take the risk that hubby won't leave. Society might subtly sneer at one choice or the other, over time, but they clearly have both extremes and every option in the middle--and they don't even need the agreement, much less the consent, of the man, the employer, or anyone else to make these choices.

This is why I hold women far more responsible for any discrimination we face than I do men. Clearly, men have stepped up to the task--women's overwhelming success in the job market demonstrates that. But have women stepped up to it? They are the ones still living by the old standards, not the men. They are the ones who provide legitimate reason to doubt the commitment and capability of all women.

I don't think that this prejudice is pervasive, thank goodness. And in many career choices, long-term commitment isn't a necessary element of an employer's decision, so it an even smaller factor. But if you wish to discuss discrimination, I think it's fair to look realistically at whether or not that prejudice is reasonable--even if it's not legal.

406. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 2:46:26 PM

So if you have a choice of hiring someone in their mid-20s for a career-oriented position, and it's between a man and a woman, who would you figure is going to be more likely to work less hours, take more time off, move into a less demanding career path, or quit altogether?

This sounds an awful lot like the old argument of why hire a woman -- she's just going to get pregnant and leave anyway. Well, as far as I know, they did away with slavery over 100 years ago and men are as free to leave a firm as a woman, and often do. Someone in our firm was faced with just such a challenge by some men in one of our managment training programs full of people fresh out of college. So she did some research. She went back 2 years to find out that all of the women who started in the program were still with the firm and all those who bailed out of the program were male. So much for stereotypes.

407. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 3:03:54 PM

So even those scumbags at various large corporations who get sued for treating women like sex objects and baby machines are really doing nothing more than women themselves do, even if they are cruder about it.

CG, you make some good arguments, but then you make a comment like the one above that just floor me (like your "final solution" approach to AIDS.)

Women sacrifice themselves up as sex objects and willingly avoid advancement, ask for lower pay and deny themselves access to important people/information/opportunities? And they do it on such a consistent basis that it explains why women get paid less even if they have the same training/experience/tenure as men?

Not in my experience. Anecdote to be sure, but a real life example nonetheless. I have seen a woman get a big job where they redefined the role adding a lot more responsibility including replacing a VP and she still did not make the VP title. Do you suppose they offered her the position as officer and she said, no, even though I've already had my children and I'm most definitely a career-oriented person who has demonstrated willingness to move and take on more responsibilities in the company, I would rather you gave the money and title and job security to someone without breasts.

408. pogie - 4/6/2001 3:10:25 PM

Well, the problem with chicks is that for every situation like that, you have another where a sizable chunk of women still say stuff like 'oh it's too expensive for me to work, so i'd better just stay home' or 'sure i'll work this menial job so you can get your mba'. I would say at this stage there is something like a 50/50 chance of a woman being as or more reliable than a guy, if one collapsed all assorted factors. If it is just as likely she'll be more flaky than that she will be less flaky, then bias is kind of likely to creep in.


By way of anecdotal example, I know of one chick who was a network engineer up until she got pregnant. She's got a resume online, but isn't actively looking for work. That type of passiveness ('i keep up with current developments in the industry through my network engineer husband') is still way more common to girls than guys. I mean honestly, would you hire the chick or her husband? Maybe guys would be more like that if they got pregnant, heh. At any rate, it is young women willing to be passive w/regard to their careers that make it more difficult for other young women to be assertive/aggressive in theirs.

409. CalGal - 4/6/2001 3:11:43 PM

This sounds an awful lot like the old argument of why hire a woman --she's just going to get pregnant and leave anyway.

But that's the point--they are. Leaving, or cutting back hours, or working "flextime", or just for a paycheck.

Also, keep in mind that there's more to life these days than staying with the same company. That's not what I was referring to. Of course a lot of the people leave. Others stay. But in both cases, leaving and staying, what matters is how productive and committed the person is. Would you rather hire someone who might leave and go on to another company but always remember that you were the one who gave him his first job? Or the person who has a baby, comes back but looks miserable, starts cutting back on hours and commitment, and finally leaves to stay home and have more kids?

Again, these are intangibles and very slight ones at that. But I certainly find this sort of thing far more plausible than the stereotype of a white male boss who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant. Speaking anecdotally again, I find this sort of opinion very prevalent among both men and women, in discussions about hiring, promotion, and so on.

She went back 2 years to find out that all of the women who started in the program were still with the firm and all those who bailed out of the program were male.

All those who bailed out of the program, or of the firm? In any event, two years is nothing.

410. CalGal - 4/6/2001 3:18:13 PM

. I would say at this stage there is something like a 50/50 chance of a woman being as or more reliable than a guy, if one collapsed all assorted factors.

Oh, absolutely! That's why women are doing so well in the workplace--because so many of them, whether they quit or not, are damn good at what they do.

But it's also true that you never know what a woman is going to do once she has kids--lots of managers openly worry about it (will she want more time off, flex time, will she quit altogether). And if you have an employee who is always running off to pick up kids from daycare without the flip side of showing a huge commitment to the job, it's hard not to think about how you could just avoid all that stress.

But again, women are firmly ensconced in all levels of management, and I personally know women who have very successfully combined kids and career advancement.

Remember that we're only talking about a 10-11% differential overall, with no evidence that it is caused by discrimination at all. I'm just speculating on the sort of discrimination that I think might contribute. Because in the end, when you have like to like at 89-90%, and overall at 72%, you know that means a lot of women are bowing out early and often.

411. CalGal - 4/6/2001 3:28:43 PM

Women sacrifice themselves up as sex objects and willingly avoid advancement, ask for lower pay and deny themselves access to important people/information/opportunities?

????

No. Women quit, cut back, or otherwise sacrifice their career because they care more about their marriage (sex objects) and their children (baby machines).

I realize it sounds far more ennobling when a woman sighs and says, "I really don't need this job, my husband makes enough and the kids really seem happier when I'm home" than it does when the boss at the brokerage firm says "Whoa! Look at the tits on that bitch!" But in the end, it isn't all that different.

What on earth is the data we're discussing pointing out, if it isn't that women still view their self-interest primarily in terms of how much money their husband makes, and their role as the primarily care giver, not income earner?

412. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 3:33:00 PM

I had a conversation yesterday with my SD--a single mom who is finally waking up to these issues. She works in a daycare center, surrounded by luxury wives with long acrylic nails (not that there's anything wrong with that!) who sigh that they only work to "keep themselves busy."

My SD was raised in a wealthy home my her step dad, who is president of a well-known insurance firm, and her mother, who after her second marriage, became a SAHM.

413. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 3:34:57 PM

But I certainly find this sort of thing far more plausible than the stereotype of a white male boss who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant.

Don't you get it? You're saying the reasons to discriminate are real and rational because that's how women do behave, and then denying that any such discrimination exists. You're doing that stereotypical "white male boss" one better by telling him he's right, that IS the way women are so of course he would be justified in discriminating, and then say besides, he's not discriminating because you don't find it plausible for him to do so.

To the last point in #409...the men had left the firm, taking all the investment in their training with them. While I don't think any of them were pregnant, they were just as gone. Two years is certainly a relevant timeframe, and the facts point out the problem with the stereotype.

414. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 3:35:28 PM

they care more about their marriage (sex objects) and their children (baby machines).

Pretty dim view of marriage, wouldn't you say? Would you say " women care more about their jobs (money) and status (power)" ?

415. CalGal - 4/6/2001 3:38:21 PM

Would you say " women care more about their jobs (money) and status (power)" ?


No. Because clearly they don't. Anyway, women define status differently--generally, they define themselves by the status of their associates. Hence they want to marry doctors and CEOs. They also do care about money, it's just that as a group they seem to think they are higher status if someone else provides the money.

As for a "dim view of marriage"--not really. I think marriage can be a lovely thing. But bottom line, it's an economic arrangement. I would actually prefer it if all the economic advantages were stripped from marriage these days, or at least any disproportionate advantage.

416. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 3:52:02 PM

CG, if that 10% discount is so irrelevant, how 'bout if I e-mail you my address and you send me 10% of your salary...I know I wouldn't mind having a 10% bonus, regardless of how much money you make.

I personally know women who have very successfully combined kids and career advancement. So do I and I personally know men who had stay-at-home wives to care for their children or adult children and still spent their days screwing up or screwing off and successfully combined that with career advancement. I don't know of any women who did the same. I also know of men who refused career enhancing opportunities because they didn't want to move their families or were tied to a geographic area but that didn't significantly derail their career path or income in the long term.

Let's just get all women to bring to an interview a certificate of childlessness and sterility and a contract guaranteeing their staying with the firm for a minimum of 10 years, and then see if that 10% goes away or not.

417. pogie - 4/6/2001 3:57:49 PM

Those chicks didn't have to stay at home. They could have made the guy do it, or worked something else out. So long as there are more chicks willing to stay home than guys, there's gunna be a gap. If a woman stays home so her husband can further his career, she's contributing to the gap, because that's one less woman earning money and proving herself in the workplace.

418. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 3:58:09 PM

Would you say " women care more about their jobs (money) and status (power)" ?

No. Because clearly they don't...
---------------
I'm amazed at the ease with which you throw around stereotypical generalizations as if they were facts. The point is *some* women care more about family than career, *some* women care more about career than anything else, *some* men just punch a clock to bring home a check, and *some* men are very dedicated to their jobs and **none** of this justifies why women should be paid less than men on a consistent, across the board basis, regardless of career (women nurses & secretaries get paid less than men nurses & secretaries) when adjustments are made for such things as education, tenure, and childlessness.

419. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:02:35 PM

You're saying the reasons to discriminate are real and rational because that's how women do behave, and then denying that any such discrimination exists.

No. I'm not saying there is any reason to discriminate at all. I am merely saying that if such discrimination exists, it is due to the fact that so many women do bail out in one form or another.

However, any such discrimination is very small and very subtle (quite possibly unconcious), and is counterbalanced, as Pogie points out, by the fact that women are equally good as employees.

I'm not excusing it. I just think it's reasonable to point out that women are more likely to work less hours, be less committed to success, less driven to succeed or for the company to succeed, and most employers consider those attributes valuable. So in the case where all other things are equal and the woman doesn't give off the aura of ambition and drive, it's quite possible that this sort of thinking plays a part.

And as long as women keep quitting and society keeps nodding approvingly when she does, I don't know that it will ever completely disappear. That's why I hold women more responsible than the employers (assuming such discrimination exists).

420. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:03:51 PM

To the last point in #409...the men had left the firm, taking all the investment in their training with them.

I knew it. See, the downside is, thoughtful, that many employers think they lost the best of the bunch.

421. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 4:10:33 PM

Either I'm too tired or too confused but I tire of trying to follow all the contradictions you continue to post here...there's no discrimination, but if there was it would be justifiable given how women behave, so we hold women responsible, even though employers feel that losing men is losing the best workers, but we know that's not discrimination because it's true, despite the fact that women have proven themselves successful in careers.

...as long as women keep quitting and society keeps nodding approvingly when she does... Been in touch with a welfare mom lately who tried to stay home to care for her kids even though the alternative was to work at 1 or 2 jobs to try to make ends meet and still be less well off? I don't recall society approving of that "stay-at-home" mom. But that's another argument for another day.

422. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 4:12:42 PM

"I'm amazed at the ease with which you throw around stereotypical generalizations as if they were facts."

I'm amazed you're just noticing this.

423. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:16:06 PM

Thoughtful,

. The point is *some* women care more about family than career, *some* women care more about career than anything else, *some* men just punch a clock to bring home a check, and *some* men are very dedicated to their jobs and **none** of this justifies why women should be paid less than men

Who on earth said anything about justification?

And of course it isn't all women, thoughtful. That is precisely my point. Discrimination, by definition, is about the group, not the individual.

But it works the other way, too. I can assure you that I do not get paid less across the board than men do, and that I have advanced as much as a cranky, opinionated, process guru could reasonably expect to, and there are plenty of women who can say the same thing. I have had many experiences where I am paid more than any of the men in the company, and vw mentioned a similar experience.

What matters, to me, is that women can succeed, and usually do, if that's what they want. The environment is in place for their success. All they need to do is take advantage of it.

I think women do take advantage of it, but many of them do so in a way that subordinates work to their home and family life. But others take full advantage of it and clearly thrive as equals with men.

I find the 72% number far more damning than the 89% number--but I'm damning a different group than you are. (g)

424. Shannon - 4/6/2001 4:18:07 PM

Been in touch with a welfare mom lately who tried to stay home to care for her kids even though the alternative was to work at 1 or 2 jobs to try to make ends meet and still be less well off

That is, as you say, another argument.

Do you really think that society generally disapproves of women staying home if there is no public assistance involved?

425. JudithAtHome - 4/6/2001 4:22:08 PM

Yes.

426. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:25:16 PM

Thoughtful,

I think the reason you find it so hard to understand me is that you don't understand my rubric. I consider it normal and understandable that below the radar discrimination occurs--whether legal or not. I don't consider it justified. I figure most employers operate in their own self-interest, and if it turns out that any of the discrepancy occurs due to discrimination, then to me, the issue is to wipe out the rationale for it. The encouraging thing is that it is so small. By far the greatest percent of the discrepancy is due to women's own choices.

So I am talking about itty bitty sways and trends this way and that way and you are interpreting them as something entirely different. Because, of course, you suspect the discrepancy is due entirely to discrimination and I would not be surprised if you actually think it's bigger than 10%.

This makes common ground for discussion difficult.

Been in touch with a welfare mom lately who tried to stay home to care for her kids even though the alternative was to work at 1 or 2 jobs to try to make ends meet and still be less well off?

In general, society feels she should have married a wallet and are now punishing her for not. The contradiction is not surprising. I wish someone would tell society that job training programs are probably more expensive than just giving them a check in the first place, and most of them are going to get off of welfare by marrying (tada) a wallet.

427. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:28:39 PM

Thoughtful,

I am not throwing around stereotypical generalizations as if they are facts. I am talking about women as a group, and have said so on many occasions. I am using the preferences that vw and the Ms, among others, have referred to.

I believe it is Ase (hi, Ase, wherever you are!) who always points out that there is more variation within gender than between gender.

428. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 4:34:50 PM

CG, I have noticed a consistency in your arguments across a number of issues, which I expect you will wholeheartedly deny....there may be victims of job discrimination but that's their fault and you don't experience it because you are strong and proactive, etc.....there may be women who are victims of domestic abuse, but that's their fault and you don't experience it because you are strong and proactive, etc....there may be people who don't have adequate healthcare but that's their fault and you haven't experienced it because you are strong and proactive, etc....and if everyone were just like you, no one would suffer these problems.

There is a line of thought that suggests that defense lawyers on rape cases should put women in the jury boxes because women are more likely than men to blame the victim. Why? Because if it's the victim's fault, then that gives them a reason to believe it can't happen to them. Well, she shouldn't have dated that guy, or dressed that way, etc. I don't and *I* haven't been raped.

It's the same reason so many young people disdain the elderly. If it's their fault for being old or deaf or slow, then I know it won't happen to me.If I hold them responsible, it means I have some control over avoiding the same fate...despite the undeniable fact that I too will age and become infirmed by it eventually.

429. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 4:40:45 PM

I think CalGal's argument is a common post-feminist one: if you don't want to be a victim, don't act like one. If you don't want to earn 90 percent of a man's wage, don't take that shit.

430. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 4:42:04 PM

I hope you continue to lead your charmed life and not experience the anger of knowing you've been unfairly wronged with no recourse or the shock and disbelief at being suddenly targeted by some stray virus or genetic oddity in your body or pain and helplessness at being the victim of a senseless crime.

But I hope too that you can see that others are not so lucky and can be harmed even though they may be as strong and proactive, etc. as you.

431. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 4:44:22 PM

In my observation, about 90 percent of the bullshit that "happens" to people could have been prevented if they had taken steps to protect themselves.

432. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 4:51:02 PM

Erin R. Thank you for confirming my post.
Oh, to have perfect foresight and be able to plan for every contingency....only thing is, do you drive the car with the air bag knowing it might save your life....or do you drive the one without it knowing the air bag might kill you. Decisions, decisions.

433. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:53:09 PM

Thoughtful,

In a discussion of any social issue, there are those who place the primary blame on society and those who look to see if the individuals in question might be contributing to it. I suspect I could come up with a whole list of problems that I consider to be societal and you would unhesitatingly assume that the individuals were bringingn it on themselves. You just wouldn't consider them to be very important problems--although I do.

But it's a bit too psychobabbly to say that I just blame others and figure those things wouldn't happen to me. In fact, I think the notion that opinions should be formed solely by experience or self-interest is rather limiting.

434. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:54:34 PM

I hope you continue to lead your charmed life

This, in particular, is a tad amusing.

435. CalGal - 4/6/2001 4:55:44 PM

But why is it, I wonder, that this conversation--which is quite interesting--had to descend to you attacking me personally? It's the second time, now.

436. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 4:56:20 PM

Gotta luv ya, calgal! You've made my evening!You're saying I've struck a chord that is too psychobabbly for you? I never thought I'd see the day.

437. LimeGirl - 4/6/2001 4:57:15 PM

Probably better to drive in a safe manner, no matter which car you choose. Some stuff you just can't do anything about, but many troubles can be avoided altogether, or at least made less troublesome by thinking and planning ahead.

I also think that victim mentality tends to increase the amount of trouble a person has. If you believe that your troubles are caused by someone else besides you, and that there's nothing you can do about it, you won't do anything. Whereas a different person in the same situation might look at all factors and decide that one of them can't be changed, but the other four can, and then go about changing those. The second person is going to be better off at the end of the day.

438. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 4:57:52 PM

I'm 6'1'. An airbag is more likely to save my life than kill me.

439. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 5:02:46 PM

I'm not attacking you personally now, and technically, I never did call you a nazi before....I suggested you were proposing ideas that were similar to those proposed by the nazis for different reasons.

And given the barbs and language you and others have hurled around these threads, I'm surprised that you would even consider my post an "attack" in any way shape or form.

Rather I'm just repackaging ideas and responses I've seen of yours in this and other threads in a way that would seem to demonstrate a common thread in your thinking and reflecting it back for you to see. (Doing so helps me understand where you may be coming from.) You know it is just one person's view and you are free to accept/trash such a view as you see fit.

440. CalGal - 4/6/2001 5:04:04 PM

You're saying I've struck a chord that is too psychobabbly for you?

No, no. I'm all for psychobabble, but it must be applied correctly.

441. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 5:04:47 PM

ErinR...then obviously you had the wisdom and foresight to choose your parents wisely. Congratulations.

442. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 5:07:00 PM

If I were 5'1", I would have my airbags disabled.

443. CalGal - 4/6/2001 5:11:10 PM

And given the barbs and language you and others have hurled around these threads, I'm surprised that you would even consider my post an "attack" in any way shape or form.


You're right; I should have said that you personalized it. I just was surprised that it couldn't continue as a discussion, rather than turn into your pique at me for having an opinion that irritates you.

I could ask you why you are always ready to blame someone else for your problems, yes? After all, given a problem that you care about, you turn to blaming others. It would be equally inapt to do so, though.

Believe it or not, I want the discrepancy to disappear as much as you do. From my perspective, you confuse the symptom with the problem. But in doing so, you apparently feel free to decide that no one else can possibly analyze the problem differently without being suspect.

444. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 5:27:03 PM

Here's my take on one factor influencing discussion between Calgal and Thoughtful: age.

Calgal is still under the impression that in 10 years she'll be able to control her work life to the extent she has to date. Thoughtful has been there and done that, and watched the casualties fall by the wayside.

My own experience is that I was a young feminist who was gungho on swallowing the 70's feminism for everyone but me: I personally never thought I'd experienced any discrimination. As I've gotten older, I've personally witnessed discrimination, but at the same time have moved away from the old feminist thinking toward a more post-feminist view. The difference is that I temper it with an understanding that not everyone can control their lives to the extent I have, and that I may soon lose more control than I'd like.

My hunch is that the current crop of young post-feminists will face experiences that will shake their faith in the wonders of the "control your destiny" line as they continue to gain experience in the labor market. This in turn has the potential to generate a revived interest in some of the more valid aspects of the earlier feminist thinking.

But then, who the hell knows what's around the corner? I only know one sure thing now, that age is beginning to work against me wrt to my marketability and my opportunities. My lifelong policy, however, has always been to ignore what can't be changed and to focus on what's within my power to address.

And so I continue to invest in my own human capital, and will probably do so for the rest of my useful work life.

445. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 5:27:37 PM

Yes, I did personalize it after I what I thought I heard was a personalized point, if I may overly simplify for the sake of argument, "There is no discrimination because I never experienced it. And if there is it's avoidable, because I've avoided it." And that reminded me of other discussions.

And mind you, I agree wholeheartedly with limegirl about the victim mentally being very harmful to one's self and don't go around blaming people for my problems. I do strive -- though often fail -- to be realistic in my assessment of my situation. And in doing so I recognize that while I may be largely responsible for events, I am not entirely responsible for all that happens to me...and neither are you or anyone else. (I can't believe that me, the control freak, type A person that I am is actually saying this.)

But in doing so, you apparently feel free to decide that no one else can possibly analyze the problem differently without being suspect.
Not at all...if everyone else thought as I did, I certainly wouldn't be here...but I also never wholesale supplant someone else's reasoning or argument for my own unless I fully understand, examine and finally agree with it....so, yes. From that POV, everyone else's argument is necessarily suspect until it makes sense to me.

446. thoughtful - 4/6/2001 5:31:48 PM

Thank you MIT. I agree that age may be a factor, though I don't know how young CG is. (Unfortunately, I know how old I am.) Her arguments though do remind me of myself when I was younger....the good old days when things were black & white instead of grayed down as they are now. Experience does scar us.

447. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 5:35:25 PM

She's under 40 Thoughtful.

Experience often tempers the certainty of youth, it certainly has for me.

448. CalGal - 4/6/2001 5:35:50 PM

Ah, and the Ms joins in.

Age is a different issue from gender. Do you have data suggesting that the pay gap increases as men and women age, like to like?

If not, why are you distracting off onto age? At least in my line of work, age discrimination against men is a common complaint. So until you have data suggesting it's a problem only with women (which is odd, considering how many women are happily rejoining the work force), why bring up age?

We are talking all men and all women, last I checked.

I do not think destiny is controllable. I think women have many choices, and the choices we are discussing here (when to have children, career choices, field of study) are all choices that have a strong element of individual control.

So why not keep the discussion on track? Why distract into some condescending notion about how we'll all feel different when we're as (gasp) old as you are? (notwithstanding the fact that I don't think we're more than six years apart)

The facts are that there is a significant income differential that is due in large part to women's choices. There is little dispute about this, as you've pointed out. The only dispute is what percent of the remaining 10% differential might be due to discrimination.

So what is the point of complaining about discrimination--which can, of course, exist--if the operative issue is that far too many women, despite education or SES, still prioritize finding a wallet to open, rather than ensuring their own has enough for their needs?

449. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 5:40:28 PM

Yes, the pay gap widens with age.

The information is polluted, however, by the fact that women historically haven't had similar work profiles as men as they age, and so I don't think it's very reliable about telling us what may happen in the years to come.

So until you have data suggesting it's a problem only with women (which is odd, considering how many women are happily rejoining the work force), why bring up age?

Because I think it explains some of the differences in your perspectives, that's why.

And you're free to ignore it or to chew on it, matters not to me. I offered my comment mainly for the peanut gallery, and for thoughtful.

450. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 5:45:22 PM

And, you know, I've spent more time here this week than I should have...

But I'm writing a paper and I need the distraction from time to time.

So just in case you thought I'd run from the discussion I'd like to go on record as having beenotherwise occupied.

451. Fielding - 4/6/2001 6:05:19 PM

Cal:

"Again, that's why I favor making divorce--in fact, just having children--far more onerous on men than it is now. "Onerous" in that they will not be expected to write checks, but provide an equal amount of care and time and commitment."

Interesting. How do you do enforce this? You want a judge to determine and review the relationship between a father and a child?

In addition, what about situations where the couple remains married and one partner does the bulk of the parenting? And what about parents that never marry? If you create an imbalance between the parenting responsibilities of a married and a divorced father, a lot of men are going to make it harder on women to get a divorce.

Note also that there are plenty of fathers that I know of who carry more of the parenting load than their conception partners.

452. mgleason - 4/6/2001 6:26:08 PM

I know that employment discrimination exists, though I've not experienced it myself, but I also know that some women contribute to this phenomenon by the choices they make, and perhaps, too, by their internalized acceptance of societal expectations. This is why books like the recent one calling for incentives for stay-at-home mothers burn me up.

453. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:27:04 PM

Yes, the pay gap widens with age.

Well, I'm only referring to like to like, but your follow up comments suggest that you aren't referring to those sort of comparisons.

Because I think it explains some of the differences in your perspectives, that's why.


You are, what: 6 years older than me? I've been at this site for 3.5 years, give or take, and to the best of my knowledge you've had the same views.

By my count you arrived at this "older but wiser" position when you were about my age now. And yet here I am, without any such change in views.

What happens if an older woman chimes in and says she disagrees with you? How will you dismiss that difference? What if women younger than me agree with you? No doubt you'll say the older one is foolish and the younger wiser than her years.

It's really quite foolish to dismiss views as different based on experience. Not everyone forms opinions based solely on what happens to them or what they observe. I certainly think observations are fine for illustration, but the day I change my opinion based solely on what happens to me and my own self-interest is the day after I have submitted to a lobotomy.

No, I fear you'll have to accept the fact that I'll be just as ruthless about holding women responsible when I'm forty as I am now. Unless all of a sudden the facts themselves change.

Besides, the whole notion of dismissing an argument based on experience is so...chicklike. Really, it's beneath both of you. "Oh, once you have a child you'll change your mind." "Oh, once you get divorced you won't be so smug." "Oh, once you go on welfare you won't be so sure that it's all because of bad choices."

If I wanted that sort of discourse I'd get a new moniker and go back to Tabletalk.

454. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:31:52 PM

Yes, I did personalize it after I what I thought I heard was a personalized point, if I may overly simplify for the sake of argument, "There is no discrimination because I never experienced it.

That's not what I said at all. You were saying that not all women wanted to marry and burp babies, etc., so how does that justify discrimination? I said it didn't justify discrimination. But also, just as it's wrong to say that all women want to marry and burp babies, it is wrong to say that all women suffer discrimination. They don't. In fact, given that there is only a 11% differential overall, and only about 10% that could possibly be attributed to discrimination, it's pretty clear that many women are not suffering any discrimination.


Back to the topic at hand: what do you think about laws that will make it less easy for women to opt out of providing for themselves and their children? Does anyone else see divorce laws as the best vehicle for that?

455. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 6:37:40 PM

Well, I'm only referring to like to like, but your follow up comments suggest that you aren't referring to those sort of comparisons.

I'd like to give you information on like v like but as I said, there really isn't any systematic data that gives a long term picture of the role gender discrimination may play when confounded with age.

So far, the experience, work history, occupational and industry variables overwhelm any sensitivity to gender among older workers. That is, they are far more important in explaining the widened pay gap between older workers.

We simply don't have enough women who have been in the labor market their entire lives, building equivalent work histories to men to say anything definitive about the compounding effects of age on gender discrimination.

In addition, there are noticable attitudinal and cultural changes wrt age discrimination generally, that is, there is some evidence that the age discrimination protections under federal laws have had some mitigating effects on employers discriminatory behavior toward older workers.

There have been some studies on women workers, and in comparing their work life-cycles to men, which indicate that older women actually have a tendency to increase their commitment to the labor market at the same time that men are reducing their commitments. Several factors have been identified as contributing to this, not the least of which is a greater economic need among older women to work than among older men.

But like to like studies among high income workers aren't thick on the ground yet.

456. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 6:38:13 PM

Which laws did you have in mind?

457. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:38:39 PM

You want a judge to determine and review the relationship between a father and a child?


No. The obvious way would be mandatory JPC.

And what about parents that never marry?

I'm not only referring to marriage. That's what the hyphenated clause "in fact, just having children" refers to.

As it is now, there is very little difference between custody and financial arrangements for parents who are never married and those who are divorced. The marriage property is a different issue.

If you create an imbalance between the parenting responsibilities of a married and a divorced father, a lot of men are going to make it harder on women to get a divorce.


There is already a substantial difference in responsibilities between a married and divorced father--the court requires a certain amount of income transfer and they have no say in it. I don't believe courts require that parents spend X on kids if they are married. So this would be added to it. At the same time, it means that women would have very little reason to want divorce--community property disappears in my proposal. No alimony, no child support. They are responsible for the kids on their days, they provide clothing and food out of their own pockets. Most other costs are split.

It doesn't really matter if one parent spent the bulk of their parenting time while married. Just as it doesn't matter if a mother never spent any money on her kids while married and then demands $2000/month in child support (and, of course, there's still no requirement she spends it on her kids).

458. Fielding - 4/6/2001 6:40:12 PM

What's a JPC?

459. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:40:45 PM

There have been some studies on women workers, and in comparing their work life-cycles to men, which indicate that older women actually have a tendency to increase their commitment to the labor market at the same time that men are reducing their commitments.

I mentioned this earlier; I think it might be due in part to economic need. But it might also be because many women decide to return to the job market after the kiddies leave.

460. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:43:49 PM

Erin,

I see divorce laws as the major motivator. I can't think of any other laws that would cause women to change their behavior. But I'm open to suggestions.

461. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:44:38 PM

Mandatory Joint Physical Custody.

And I mean real joint physical custody, not the farce going around these days, which has the qualifier, "with primary physical custody going to the mother".

462. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 6:46:10 PM

No, I fear you'll have to accept the fact that I'll be just as ruthless about holding women responsible when I'm forty as I am now. Unless all of a sudden the facts themselves change.

Most likely, I'll wait to see what you do when you're 55 however.

By my count you arrived at this "older but wiser" position when you were about my age now. And yet here I am, without any such change in views.

I don't think so, I think I arrived at it in my early 40's.

What happens if an older woman chimes in and says she disagrees with you?

I'd like to hear it, myself, it would increase the information I currently have, and give me pause in my tentative hypotheses to date. I'm perfectly willing to revise my positions when I'm presented with good alternative explanations, or data that confirms a different perspective. I've nothing personal invested in these comments you know.

They're all just working hypotheses, IMO.

463. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 6:48:06 PM

I don't know about divorce laws, but I'm all for encouraging women to think of themselves as breadwinners. Which is why I'm now so proud of my step daughter.

Cal, there's a hilarious discussion going on in MWT: Looking ahead to your dau(g)ther's marriage prospects. Wish you were there.

464. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 6:49:27 PM

If you're concerned about breadwinning abilities at age 55, what are you doing about it? What can be done about it?

465. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:50:32 PM

Oh, lord. Do you tell me these things to punish me? Such a cruel person.

Ms,

I'm sure you know some women older than you who disagree with you. I can think of several, including my mother. My mother, incidentally, was a sahm who was not a role model. But her views are roughly in line with my own.

466. CalGal - 4/6/2001 6:57:44 PM

Ms,

But you're not 55, either.

Besides, we both surely know of women in their 50s who aren't suffering and are doing well in their careers.

467. Erin R. - 4/6/2001 6:58:14 PM

It's all about how educated girls will have lean pickings when it comes time to marry, and how boys these days suck because they can't fix their own cars.

I think my mother, who is 52, would agree with me and Cal.

468. Cellar Door - 4/6/2001 7:00:26 PM

The British "Ex-Gay" Movement Throws in the Towel.

469. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 7:27:32 PM

I don't know women in their mid to late 50's who've worked all their lives who also think that they're in complete control over their economic fates. I know women who believe that they suffer the dual problem of both gender and age discrimination, and don't seem to be able to separate the effects.

Btw, it doesn't surprise me in the least that stay at home women would agree with your position, my god, why wouldn't they? What experience would they have to suggest any other belief than self-destiny?

However, you've some experience otherwise. I withdraw my comments.

470. CalGal - 4/6/2001 8:01:46 PM

Ms,

But there you are, deciding that experience determines opinion again. In fact, you are completely wrong about my mother, who has always held that it is important for women to be able to provide for themselves. I wish that she'd realized that there was more to "providing for oneself" than being able to get an excellent secretarial position in a hurry, but there's no question that she believed in being self-reliant from the time she was a teenager. Had her priorities been a bit grander in scope, I'd have a hell of an inheritance. Sigh.

As far as women "believing" they suffer gender discrimination--I am always very skeptical of those who say it exists and those who say they have suffered from it. In most cases, I hear their tale of what they consider to be profound discrimination and am left unmoved, much less convinced.

I scoff at my male friends who worry about age discrimination, too, but that's because they are senior level experts who probably have nothing to worry about. I don't doubt that age discrimination can be a factor in mid-level employees who are competing against younger workers.

472. MsIvoryTower - 4/6/2001 10:47:25 PM

But there you are, deciding that experience determines opinion again.

Occasionally, it would be grand if you didn't jump with both feet into the wrong tunnel and take off running.

You're the one who asserted you know anecdotal evidence that undermines my comment. I simply acknowledged that and withdrew from the conversation. I know by now when it's pointless.

As far as women "believing" they suffer gender discrimination--I am always very skeptical of those who say it exists and those who say they have suffered from it.

Good for you. Lucky that others actually take such information seriously, or we'd not have any discrimination laws on the books.

In most cases, I hear their tale of what they consider to be profound discrimination and am left unmoved, much less convinced.

I see. Well, the upside is that I doubt there's much that would convince you, given the strength of your opinions.

I scoff at my male friends who worry about age discrimination, too, but that's because they are senior level experts who probably have nothing to worry about.

hahaha, you must be very hard to have as a friend. No tea and sympathy for you.....

473. CalGal - 4/6/2001 11:00:40 PM

You're the one who asserted you know anecdotal evidence that undermines my comment.

Oh, unfair. It was you who said that my opinions were derived primarily from my (ha) youth--as a "working hypothesis". Using that yardstick, I asked what you would do if older women disagreed with you. You said you'd like to hear from them and I said but surely we both knew some and cited one example. You then used another yardstick (the fact that my mother was SAHM) to dismiss that example. Of course, that wasn't originally part of your hypothesis. Does it keep changing?

I certainly was not citing anecdotal evidence to disprove anything other than the hypothesis that you yourself set up--and it was not one that allowed for exceptions, originally.

Lucky that others actually take such information seriously, or we'd not have any discrimination laws on the books.


Not so. Discrimination laws are on the books because of very real discrimination--firing women when men became available, having written policies that paid women less and made women ineligible for jobs and various colleges. There was no need to "believe" anyone back then, there was plenty of documentation supporting it, because most people thought it was reasonable to discriminate against women.

Well, the upside is that I doubt there's much that would convince you, given the strength of your opinions.

Not true. I have seen discrimination before myself and occasionally hear a tale that rings true. But I'm talking about women who say things like, "The women all got paid less than the men, and in my case I did all the work and was four times as valuable and yet the men got all the glory" and I'm like "yeah, yeah". (That's also what I say to men with stories like that).

I am sure I'm quite difficult to have as a friend, but in all fairness to me, my scoffing is a way of reassuring them.

474. CalGal - 4/6/2001 11:06:38 PM

I also think you are missing the point: I object to you and thoughtful distracting off to try and come up with a reason for my opinion, rather than addressing it, disagreeing with it, or whatever. We then began debating the validity of your hypothesis, but my objection still stands.

Also, I find you and thoughtful both prone to overstating my case. For example, I have never said that anyone is in "complete control" of their economic "fates". Ill health and accidents can screw up the most solid of plans. But we aren't talking about women who are unable to control their lives due to bad luck, by and large. We're talking about women consistently making choices that result in them having less money, less power, and less control.

475. Jon Ferguson - 4/6/2001 11:08:51 PM

re 465

I'm sure you know some women older than you who disagree with you. I can think of several, including my mother. My mother, incidentally, was a sahm who was not a role model. But her views are roughly in line with my own.

Calgal's 'mother' was a single adult homosexual male (sahm)? Is that why she has so many issues with CD? (g)

476. CalGal - 4/6/2001 11:11:42 PM

I have no issues with Cellar. Besides, he's not single.

480. angel-five - 4/7/2001 2:26:52 AM

Older women don't disagree with me. Some chianti and fava beans and not so much as a twinge in the tum, but it's all a matter of how you spice them.

481. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 9:01:18 AM

Not so. Discrimination laws are on the books because of very real discrimination--firing women when men became available, having written policies that paid women less and made women ineligible for jobs and various colleges.

Women first related their experiences, then the research came, and laws were developed as a result.

There was no need to "believe" anyone back then, there was plenty of documentation supporting it, because most people thought it was reasonable to discriminate against women.

There certainly was a need to "believe" women's stories. There was no attempt to address the issue until women actually began telling their stories. Someone had to investigate.

You discount women's experience as relevant, particularly if there can be found any counter-experiences. In fact, you admitted you've scoffed at womens' stories because they didn't convince you. I'm sure they felt lucky that those original stories of discrimination were taken seriously enough by some to investigate and research it.

Are you so naive that you think once overt discrimination is addressed all discrimination is over? If so, I can understand why CD is enraged with you.

And I was being kind to attribute some of the rigidity of your views and opinions to age; if there's no excuse, then I can only chalk it up to an incredible self-absorbtion and lack of understanding of lives other than your own.

482. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 9:09:23 AM

And as far as I'm concerned, I've made my statements regarding women's pay, the reasons for them, and what factors are likely to keep the gap alive for the forseeable future.

I retract my comment on the possibility that age and experience will cause some here to change their views. Obviously, that will not be the case.

484. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 10:56:38 AM

We know you do your frothing and foaming in private.

Do you think I should be more public, CD?

Hard to change one's style to such an extent....

485. CalGal - 4/7/2001 12:30:14 PM

There certainly was a need to "believe" women's stories. There was no attempt to address the issue until women actually began telling their stories. Someone had to investigate.

There was no need to "believe" anything. Discrimination was a documented and established fact of life, not something that was hidden. There were laws preventing women from working at night. The government "encouraged" employers during WWII to pay women as much as they paid men, rather than pay them less as was the usual practice. Such compliance was voluntary. There were separate wants ads for men and women.

Women didn't have to "believed". Discrimination was not only a fact, it was written into the laws. The EPA mandated that existing laws and documented employment practices be eliminated.

Are you so naive that you think once overt discrimination is addressed all discrimination is over?

Are you so committed to huffing and puffing that you don't actually read what I say? See 473. I'll leave it to you to figure out which paragraph.

I do believe that people who view the world from a "victimized group" perspective quite often see it where none exists. I also am very aware that there are far too many people out there who have no clue what makes employers tick, and as a result their whinings about how "I do all the work and [some other members of some other class] get promoted" are never going to be compelling to me.

You discount women's experience as relevant, particularly if there can be found any counter-experiences.

No, I don't discount their experience. I just reserve the right to interpret it differently. Just because someone thinks they've been discriminated against doesn't mean that any discrimination occurred.

486. CalGal - 4/7/2001 12:42:46 PM

In fact, you admitted you've scoffed at womens' stories because they didn't convince you.

Actually, I said I scoffed at male friends. You should read more carefully.

That said, I do scoff at anyone whose complaints betray ignorance of how the workplace operates and ascribe it to discrimination or other unfair practices.

I think women who think they have been discriminated against should build a case and take it to court. If they can't build a case, they should realize two things: 1) it might not actually be discrimination, and 2) if they are unhappy or underpaid, regardless of the cause, they should leave.

I would also point out that it is by no means a given that sexist behavior correlates to less pay for women. It's quite possible for a boss's rough and sexist behavior to go along with a ready willingness to reward by results, not beliefs. But any number of women will tell me "horror" stories about a boss's Hooter's jokes as proof they are discriminated against. Are you being paid less? Getting fewer opportunities? I'll ask. They either "feel sure they are" or, in many cases, are actually doing very well. But if the boss is sexist surely they're discriminated against. Sigh.

I also wonder if any discrimination suits have been brought against women for discriminating against other women, since I've certainly heard more disparaging remarks about female employees (and managers) from women than I have about men.

487. CalGal - 4/7/2001 12:52:11 PM

Some links I found:

EXPLAINING TRENDS IN THE GENDER WAGE GAP: A Report by the Council of Economic Advisers

Corning Glass Works vs. Brennan

Milestones in EEOC History, by year

488. vw - 4/7/2001 12:55:40 PM

Posts 397, 398, & 400 deleted as dups.

Posts 471, 477- 479, 483 moved to the Inferno.

489. vw - 4/7/2001 1:01:38 PM

Hey, who ever put the recent conversation on gender/income on the front page, thanks. I've been in lawyer/house inspection hell the last 48 hrs and haven't had time to log in until now.

490. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 7:25:13 PM

Actually, I said I scoffed at male friends. You should read more carefully.


As far as women "believing" they suffer gender discrimination--I am always very skeptical of those who say it exists and those who say they have suffered from it. In most cases, I hear their tale of what they consider to be profound discrimination and am left unmoved, much less convinced.


Semantics games.....

491. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 7:32:14 PM

What, you didn't believe my comments vw?

Anyway, the link reports the a lot of the research I tried to summarize in my cryptic comments. However, I think they're off on the 25% still remaining unexplained.

Studies that look within fields, like across all engineers, or teachers or MBA's, find a narrower differential once experience and hours worked are controlled for (among other things). The differential narrows to under 15% in most cases, and can be even lower depending on the field.

For instance, among teachers, the unexplained differential is only between 5-7% after everything under the sun has been accounted for.

492. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 7:33:38 PM

omit the "the" before the a lot and close those latter two....

I'm going to preview one of these days, I swear.

493. vw - 4/7/2001 7:42:35 PM

What, you didn't believe my comments vw?

Huh? I'm not sure what you're referring to MsIT.

494. MsIvoryTower - 4/7/2001 7:46:42 PM

I was just teasing, vw.

You posted the study above which includes most of the research I cryptically referred to in my previous posts on the topic.

I just take exception to their conclusion that 25% of the wage gap remains unexplained. Not so, when within-field analyses are included.

495. CalGal - 4/7/2001 8:16:54 PM

Ms,

I'm not sure why you decide it's semantics. I don't automatically sympathize and agree with every woman who thinks she has a horror story about discrimination. It has to be something that I think is discrimination, and then it has to be something I think is a horror story.

Incidentally, I feel reasonably sure that if a man posted a story about the discrimination he suffered you would be less than sympathetic--particularly if he posted it to prove that men suffer, too.

Apparently I am supposed to practice gender discrimination in my sympathy allocation--I am to sympathize with women merely because they are women?

496. Cellar Door - 4/7/2001 9:42:41 PM

Women should be sold into slavery.

Look what wonders slavery created for African-Americans.

I've no doubt it would do women a world of good.

497. vw - 4/8/2001 9:34:06 AM

It is rather ridiculous to sit here and deny the role of women’s choices in employment as contributing to the wage gap when the very studies defining the matter say the same thing.

From the conclusion of The Council of Economic Advisers report:

There is both good news and bad news with regard to gender pay differences. The bad news is that there remains a significant differential between women’s and men’s pay. On average, women earn about 75 percent of what men earn. Even after controlling for differences in skills and job characteristics, women still earn less than men. While there are a variety of interpretations of this remaining "unexplained" differential, one plausible interpretation is that gender wage discrimination continues to be present in the labor market. This interpretation is buttressed by other more direct studies of pay discrimination, which also show continuing gender differences in pay that are not explained by productivity or job differences.

The good news is that these differences have decreased in recent decades. This is true not only for the "raw" gap in average female/male pay, which has decreased from about 40 percent to about 25 percent over the past two decades, but it is also true for the "unexplained" difference in female/male pay once factors that affect pay are controlled for. This suggests both that women’s skills and job choices are becoming more similar to those of men, and that discrimination may be lessening as well.

498. vw - 4/8/2001 9:34:23 AM

(Sorry, MsIT … my humor indicator and long-term memory must be on the fritz – chalk it up the fact that my frazzled status is at Def Con 2 – grin)

499. vw - 4/8/2001 9:51:17 AM

As an employer, I tend to prefer to hire married people with children. I find that they are more stable, more reliable and less likely to pack up and move to the West Coast two weeks after I have finished paying for their training.

Is that discrimination? In part. I am making assumptions about young unmarried and/or child free people based on stereotypes and past experience that shape my interactions with that population.

But it is also partially based on statistical fact. Young unmarried people are 34% more likely to leave employment in the first 18 months of the job (which depending on their position costs my company somewhere between $4500-$6500). That is a fact and a monetary cost that I cannot ignore if I’m going to keep my company afloat. Does that mean I refuse to hire young unmarried employees? No. It means I evaluate them in a different manner.

I suppose in a better world I wouldn’t care about such things and would never ask any other question except for “can you do the job”. But I don’t run a business in a better world. I run one here and now where “who you are” demographically does play some part in how you are evaluated. I try to be very aware of what and how I make these decisions. I try to be aware of my own prejudices. But after having three such employees leave my company in one year at a cost to the company of almost $15,000, I am wary.

500. MsIvoryTower - 4/8/2001 10:33:03 AM

vw

It's called "statistical discrimination"...

501. CalGal - 4/9/2001 12:02:21 PM

I'm always astonished that employers still pay for training on anything other than "How things work at Our Company". This isn't a slam at you, vw, just my woefully ignorant take on standard business practice.

In larger companies I think some of them try to recoup costs from the employee if they leave too quickly.

Statistical discrimination is what I was referring to earlier--just didn't know how to describe it.

Do the comparisons generally compare industry to industry, private sector to private sector, and so on? Women do tend to work in government jobs and "safe" jobs in the private sector more than men.

Also, I found it astonishing that the report mentions that women are, as a group, less productive than men. The report mentions this as if it is irrelevant, since the degree to which they are less productive is less than the paygap. Obviously all women can't be less productive, or we wouldn't do as well as individuals--and yet we do. But I wonder how much that plays into it?

I suppose you can't compare groups by productivity rather than pay--too difficult? It would be interesting to see if the wage gap disappears when you correlate for productivity.

502. rubberducky - 4/9/2001 12:18:48 PM

Re: Message # 501, CalGal.

I'm always astonished that employers still pay for training on anything other than "How things work at Our Company".

of course they are and will for a very long time. it is looked at by the employee as one of the bennies of working for Company X and a way for the company to give the employee something that isn't hard cash and can potentially save them (relative) $$.

503. CalGal - 4/9/2001 12:28:29 PM

Well, you don't have to get me started on untaxed bennies.

I understand that the employee looks on it that way. But I'm not sure all that much is in it for the employer, once you get past the skills that are only applicable to their own company.

Of course, even that training represents a cost, but at least you know the employee isn't using it elsewhere.

504. thoughtful - 4/9/2001 1:09:02 PM

I had posted this study before a long time ago, but I'm including it again here because it suggests that there is a generational element to women's perception/experience of discrimination.

The Committee discovered that junior women faculty feel well supported within their departments and most do not believe that gender bias will impact their careers. Junior women faculty believe, however, that family-work conflicts may impact their careers differently from those of their male colleagues. In contrast to junior women, many tenured women faculty feel marginalized and excluded from a significant role in their departments. Marginalization increases as women progress through their careers at MIT. Examination of data revealed that marginalization was often accompanied by differences in salary, space, awards, resources, and response to outside offers between men and women faculty with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues. An important finding was that this pattern repeats itself in successive generations of women faculty.

In thinking about this it follows in that firms may often have more structured starting salaries and it takes time for the greater variation to creep in as employees progress through their career. Also salary differences early on in a career may be so marginal as to be imperceptible, but can grow over time. Perceptions by upper management as to what it takes to be a leader may also impact the salary and position decisions -- something younger workers are less likely to experience.

505. vw - 4/9/2001 7:47:38 PM

It's called "statistical discrimination"...


Yes, thank you. And I imagine that it is the hardest form of discrimination to prevent. Logically, I know that my bias is unfair and illogical, therefore I attempt to think carefully about it before reacting. Nonetheless, from a gut level business sense I feel perfectly justified on some level because I can point to stats that support my bias.

506. vw - 4/9/2001 7:57:01 PM

In larger companies I think some of them try to recoup costs from the employee if they leave too quickly.

Yeah, that's the problem with being a small company - to little to absorb the costs easily and not big enough to start a legal wrangle over every penny. Sometimes the most cost effective thing to do is take it in the shorts and try not to let it happen again.

507. Dusty - 4/10/2001 8:29:05 AM

Sorry if this is off the subject, but I have a question that fits the thread title.
I'm reading the Front Page WSJ article on the woes of a bail bondsman. A very cursory review of the article, and a few selected bail bonds sites suggests that the model for a bail bond is still the standard one: get 10% as a fee, and collateral (sometimes) to ensure that the person doesn't skip town.
There's an obviously better model: attach an electronic bracelet to ensure they don't skip town. I can only surmise that there are social issues associated with such an approach. Does anyone here think that it would be a violation of someone's rights to if they had the voluntary option of an electronic bracelet in exchange for a lower bail bond cost? If so, why?

508. thoughtful - 4/10/2001 8:31:11 AM

Didn't Darryl Strawberry have an electronic ankle bracelet on? Initially I would question the effectiveness. But if a person volunteers, I don't see it as violating their rights.

509. vw - 4/11/2001 8:28:11 AM

There's an obviously better model: attach an electronic bracelet to ensure they don't skip town.

Obviously better how? I thought I had heard that they are relatively easy to remove and not effectively monitored? I think I can remember a couple of over publicized cases where crimes were committed while the person was wearing the bracelet?

Are they expensive?

510. Dusty - 4/11/2001 8:45:17 AM

vw

I thought I had heard that they are relatively easy to remove and not effectively monitored?

Are they expensive?

511. CalGal - 4/11/2001 9:49:39 AM

It's not just the cost of the bracelet, it's the cost of the monitoring. Also, I imagine most people don't skip town after posting bail, so it may be an expensive solution for something that isn't enough of a problem.

512. Erin R. - 4/11/2001 10:38:06 AM

Well, I just got my first recruiter voice mail on the new job. Guess I should call them back.

513. Erin R. - 4/11/2001 10:39:45 AM

Whoops! I meant to post that in the money thread.

514. Dusty - 4/11/2001 10:54:27 AM

CalGal

It's enough of a problem that the multi-billion dollar insurer AIG threw in the towel because the losses were too much.

I can work out the finances. I'm just interested in whether there are social objections.

515. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:29:28 PM

Well, they aren't guilty yet, are they? I suppose that's the logical objection. Do you get the money back if you're innocent?

516. Shannon - 4/11/2001 12:35:27 PM

Bail money? You get that back simply by showing up to trail, don't you?

I had to bail a boyfriend's friend out of jail once. I must say, the bail bondsman was the only helpful person we dealt with. The cops LIED to us about where the jail was, causing us to roam all over town. When we called the jail, nobody would tell us anything. We weren't sure he was even there yet, as he'd just been arrested. We got fed up with trying to get info, and went to the bail bonds place. The woman made a couple of phone calls, took our money and information, and told us when/where to be to pick him up.

517. Ms. No - 4/11/2001 12:37:54 PM

If you've ever visited anyone in jail they (the cops) make you feel like a criminal they just haven't caught yet. It's really demeaning.

518. vw - 4/11/2001 5:53:17 PM

Here's an article from 12/06/99 describing a GPS bracelet system: The Long Arm of the Law

I linked to it only because it cleared up an issue for me. I was remembering the older models that required you to be near a base unit to prevent the alarm from triggering. This was fine for people under house arrest, but that kind of in-your-home-only restriction seemed too severe to me for people only arrested of a crime, not convicted of a crime.

But the newer technology, which allows freedom of movement through GPS tracking, seems to me to be reasonable. It doesn’t restrict the alleged offender in continuing their day-to-day activities, yet it alerts the authorities when the bracelet-wearer strays from the agreed upon location limits.

The only place I see the possibility of a violation of privacy is actually in the effectiveness of the system. The tracking is pretty accurate. It allows the authorities to pinpoint a wearer’s location at all times.

Now if the authorities only pinpoint the wearer’s location after he or she has strayed from the restricted area, which seems reasonable. If the wearer is accused of committing another crime while wearing the bracelet and the authorities use the tracking to ascertain whether or not the wearer was in the new crime vicinity at the time of the crime, that also seems reasonable.

But if the authorities have no reasonable expectation that the wearer is either 1) violating bail or 2) committing another crime then just but instead are just “checking up” on the wearer out of curiosity or the desire to find evidence that further incriminates the wearer through circumstance, than that seems like a clear violation of the wearers privacy.

Does that make sense?

519. vw - 4/11/2001 5:54:50 PM

Oops, sorry. The link above was supposed to be: The Long Arm of the Law

520. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 10:06:40 PM

Amazing technology. Quite a few new cars offer an OnStar option which, among other things, will tell exactly where a car is at any given time. Great if your car is stolen. Not so great if you go somewhere you would prefer no one know about and it's all in a computer somewhere. The system may include a record of your speed also. Not sure about this. Scary.

521. joezan - 4/11/2001 11:49:31 PM

Our court had been looking into the possibility of using the GPS trackers, mainly as a tool for alleviating overcrowding.

We sent some folks out to Oakland County (MI) to check it out, and they were just floored by its efficiency and accuracy.

We've been using the old phone-based technology for a long time, but most P.O.s are very wary of using it for anyone charged with any kind of felony. They're just not reliable, for the reasons outlined in the article. Besides, whenever there is a change in schedule (new bus stop requiring earlier leave/later enter, job change, etc., all that info has to be disseminated to law enforcement, probation, detention, and of course to the Dept. of Corrections, which monitors the probationers by calling the base units at pre-set times. Very clunky.

However, juvenile crime has decreased so sharply over the past year that we are almost never even at capacity, let alone overcrowded.

I hope this technology is pursued, though. It could take a real load off of the more taxed systems.

522. Dusty - 4/12/2001 8:04:59 AM

vw

Thanks for the link. That is precisely the type of system I was thinking about. You bring up a good point about privacy, but it sounds like it can be easily addressed. identify "acceptable" areas the person can visit, and the computer can simply identify that the person is in the acceptable area. Only if he or she leaves the acceptable area would it identify the specific location.

joezan
It seems like a very sensible solution. I hope you'll keep us informed if you decide to implement the system (or decide not to.)

Shannon
You get the bail money back if you post the full amount. Many people cannot post the full amount, and use a bail bondsman. The bail bondsman posts the full amount, and asks for a fee typically 10%, from the offender (or friends or relatives). This fee is not refunded. You indicated that you used a bail bondsman. Did you end up getting a bond from him, or did you post the full bail?

523. vw - 4/13/2001 8:29:51 AM

Would you go and watch? Okla. families can watch McVeigh execution on TV

Seeing as I'm not sure exactly what I think of the death penalty, I'm really not sure what I think of this. It certainly harkens back to a time when the whole family took a picnic basket down to the town square to see the latest cattle rustler swing.

OTOH, the 168 people who were killed have who knows how many parents, spouses, and loved ones that may or may not need to see the end of McVeigh to bring an end to their own grieving.

524. vw - 4/13/2001 8:32:37 AM

Here's an opinion piece on the topic: A Slippery Slope to Public Executions?

525. rubberducky - 4/13/2001 9:25:05 AM

as i said when this was mentioned as an idea before, i'm all for it and would most assuredly watch execution.

526. Shannon - 4/13/2001 9:40:09 AM

Dusty,
We got a bond. His bail was only $1500, as I recall, but we were all young and poor. But even if we'd had the full amount, I'm not sure we'd ever have figured out where he was and how to get him out w/o going through the bondsman. What's the PC term, anyway? Bondsperson? Bondswoman? Bondtron?.

But what you've described is how I thought it worked. Thanks.

527. bubbaette - 4/13/2001 9:46:18 AM

I most certainly would not watch -- but then I don't go to blood and guts movies either.

528. CalGal - 4/13/2001 11:19:38 AM

I agree with Morrow's take on it--far better to put the guy in total radio silence than give him the vindication of being killed.

Aren't relatives allowed to see the execution already? Why is this different?

529. rubberducky - 4/13/2001 11:28:18 AM

it is different because there are so many affected that it's impossible to fit them all anywhere other than a football stadium. and executions have never been televised that i'm aware of.

530. mgleason - 4/13/2001 11:34:26 AM

There's room for ten of the OK people at the execution, I think. I haven't read who they are.

McVeigh's hoping to go out a martyr for the cause; I wouldn't give him the satisfaction.

As far as televising the actual execution, McVeigh had made noises that if Ashcropft allowed the closed-circuit affair, he'd go to court to force it on national TV, but he backed off from that. It would have made for an interesting debate.

531. CalGal - 4/13/2001 11:35:14 AM

Oh, well then. I think they have the same right as any other relatives. Is it going to be taped?

532. mgleason - 4/13/2001 11:38:31 AM

I read that Federal law prohibits taping.

533. CalGal - 4/13/2001 11:38:37 AM

Hadn't refreshed, obviously.

534. rubberducky - 4/13/2001 12:01:50 PM

i hope they tape it myself.

that, or have everyone waiting in sets of 10 and throw the switch, clear the room, and throw it again and again til all you really need is a baggie and hand broom

535. mgleason - 4/13/2001 12:06:13 PM

It's death by lethal injection, old chap. The Feds are too civilized to use Ol' Sparky.

536. rubberducky - 4/13/2001 12:08:59 PM

oh

well, where's the fun in that?

537. mgleason - 4/13/2001 12:15:42 PM

It sure ain't FL, where there used to be a better than even chance of seeing flames shoot out from the person's head.

538. rubberducky - 4/13/2001 12:16:37 PM

sigh

now that's justice!

539. Wombat - 4/13/2001 12:59:17 PM

Not only should executions be public, but they should be as gruesome as possible. They should be broadcast on every network during prime time. If this does not deter crime (as capital punishment's advocates sometimes claim), than the spectacle of state applied vengeance should disgust enough people to reconsider capital punishment altogether.

540. Dusty - 4/16/2001 7:42:19 AM

Economist Opinion on cloning
Excerpt:

STEP forward to a dinner party in 2025. Your hostess warns you that the tomatoes are the new cholesterol-reducing ones. Your host grumbles that he eats only organic food. Your gay neighbour tells you how his clone (should you think of it as his son or his brother?) is doing at school. Somebody mentions the amount that the Smiths have paid to make sure their next daughter has blue eyes. Wouldn’t it have been better spent on making her musical? Somebody jokes about that couple who could have had a Margaret Thatcher clone but chose a Bill Clinton instead. On the drive back, the headlines are about attempts to raise the retirement age to 95.

This is not a prophecy, merely a set of possibilities that the revolution in genetic science might throw up. Would such a world horrify you, inspire you, liberate you, disgust you? Perhaps a combination of all these emotions. Genetic science does not pose just the “normal” questions of how we should regulate any new technology. It also presents ethical and political challenges, many of which cut across the traditional barriers of liberalism and conservatism. If America is a guide (see article), then most politicians are floundering to understand what may be just around the corner.

541. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:35:35 AM

I'm against. I don't see any reason why it should be allowed at any point, default or not.

But I believe it's pretty much a moot point right now. Haven't all the animal clones resulted in serious genetic problems?

542. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 10:53:16 AM

I have absolutely no problem with cloning, as long as they can work out the kinks with the aforementioned genetic defects.

543. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 10:55:34 AM

eh, people should be able to clone themselves with little or no hindrances as long as a clone can be marked, somehow, as such.

why stop people who need bone marrow, blood, organs or hell, new hair?

544. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:58:20 AM

I'm not sure you can know whether or not there are genetic kinks for a long time. And until we actually started experimenting with humans we wouldn't be able to tell whether there were serious personality issues.

Besides, if you allow people to clone just to get spare body parts, are you then saying that clones won't be completely human? Different sets of rights?

545. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 10:59:32 AM

Why should a clone be "marked?"

546. CalGal - 4/16/2001 10:59:35 AM

I'm not sure you can know whether or not there are genetic kinks for a long time.

Ack. Not enough sleep. I'm not sure you can know for sure if genetic kinks have been eliminated for many generations.

547. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:01:52 AM

What genetic defects?
I'm in the middle of searching articles even as I type, but don't recall such problems.

548. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:03:57 AM

There are serious problems--the one I remember is the mice or rats that became incredibly fat when they hit puberty. But there were others, even among the sheep.

549. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:08:22 AM

There is a small risk of genetic damage in cloning. It happens even in the plant world. Whether you are duplicating a tulip or daffodil bulb, or replicating an orchid plant through meristem culture, there is a certain percentage of offspring that are damaged or differ from the parent. It is as if nature is insisting that nothing ever be permanent.

I do not wish to see the government ban cloning, but I have no particular desire to see the government fund it either.

550. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:10:45 AM

Re: Message # 544, CalGal.

Besides, if you allow people to clone just to get spare body parts, are you then saying that clones won't be completely human? Different sets of rights?

i would look at my clone as my property. it is me and i would do with it as i will.

no, I wouldn’t consider it ‘completely human’. no ‘rights’ at all.

551. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 11:11:18 AM

I've been reading that theoretically, clones would live no longer than the "parent," that is, if a man is cloned at 30, and has a life expectancy of 70, the clone would live no longer than 40 years.

552. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:11:42 AM

i would look at my clone as my property. it is me and i would do with it as i will.

no, I wouldn’t consider it ‘completely human’. no ‘rights’ at all.

Ha, ha, ha. Oh, yeah. That's gonna fly.

553. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:13:31 AM

It's actually because of Ducky's approach that I oppose cloning no matter what. I think it will create a whole host of human rights issues.

554. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:13:54 AM

CG:

i make no pretense that what i envision has a snowball's chance of entering into law, but then that's par for the course for me, no?

555. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:15:16 AM

A clone will, of course, be a human being with all the rights human beings have. To suggest that they can be harvested for organs is preposterous.

556. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:16:42 AM

ErinR,

Where do you get that notion? Clones would be born as infants, same as other humans.

557. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:18:31 AM

if no harvesting of organs is allowed, then ban cloning. there are enough damn people on this planet as it is.

558. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:19:35 AM

Ronski,

I think Ducky's approach is the only reason why people would clone, anyway. What other advantage is there?

559. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 11:25:43 AM

I've read that this is a big problem with cloning.

560. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:25:47 AM

Cal,

I think few people would clone, actually, apart from a few egomaniacs. I don't see much of an advantage, in any case. That doesn't mean the science should not proceed (privately funded). A use for it may arise someday, perhaps after some unforseen biological or natural catastrophe, or war.

561. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:25:48 AM

Erin R.
Ronski

There was one site suggesting that the DNA of Dolly seemed to be consistent with that of an older sheep, but the article I found just hinted at the issue, and said it would discussed in a forthcoming article in Nature. Unfortunately, it appears that Nature articles require membership.
I haven't seen a definitive article on the issue. Erin, have you seen one?

562. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:26:46 AM

rubberducky is clearly wrong. In fact, I doubt it was serious, I suspect it was a troll.

563. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:28:39 AM

Perhaps the older DNA is consistent with the problem of genetic defects. Cells are not programmed to divide indefinitely.

564. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 11:28:54 AM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,26348,00.html

Don't know why that link didn't work the first time.

565. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:29:41 AM

Ronski,

Provided it doesn't go forward with humans, I'm all for cloning research. I agree that it never hurts to have another way of reproducing humans as a backup.

Dusty,

He may have been joking, but I think it's the only reason to clone humans.

566. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:29:47 AM

Here is one article on the aging issue:

Sheep Clone's Cells Aging Faster Than She Is

Note that the article does not support the unqualified headline.

567. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:31:47 AM

CalGal
He may have been joking, but I think it's the only reason to clone humans.
In that case, you won't be interested. What is your rationale for banning it for the benefit of others?

568. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:36:07 AM

A different aging "conclusion":

The report in the journal Science describes the cloning of six calves generated from cells at the end of their lifespan. “The old cells were not merely returned to a youthful state. Remarkably, they were actually given a longer life span than those from normal animals,” said Dr. Robert P. Lanza , MD, Vice President of Medical and Scientific Development at ACT and first author of the report. The cloned animals, one of which is celebrating her first birthday this week, have telomeres that look like newborn calves despite the fact that they were cloned from senescent cells.

569. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:38:51 AM

Dusty,

It's not a matter of my preference. I mean that there is no reason to clone humans, period, if you aren't speaking about harvesting their body parts--which entails defining their rights differently.

570. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:38:56 AM

Dusty

mostly serious. but i would think that clones ought not be allowed to be made unless there is some sort of desperate utility to be gained.

solders, experiments, organ harvesting. these are the only types of reasons i see for cloning. and, yes, i would consider it property - the same as i would aborted baby tissue used in similar research.

571. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:39:30 AM

Erin R.
Yes, that Time article points to the possibility that Dolly may be aging faster. It isn't definitive, but more importantly, it isn't happening in all clones. It may simply be that we need to learn how to do it right.

That's the best argument I can think of for going slow on cloning humans.

572. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 11:40:15 AM

There is still a lot of inconclusiveness regarding the aging issue. But I support further research.

573. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:41:31 AM

CalGal

It may be your personal opinion that there is no reason to clone a human other than for body parts, but I haven't seen you prove that there are no other reasons, so I assumed you were talking about your personal preferences.

If you have proof that there are no other reasons for human cloning, spill, please.

574. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:43:59 AM

rubberducky

mostly serious.

575. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:47:39 AM

Dusty,

"Proof"? What proof is needed? We have a perfectly good way of reproducing human life.

The burden of proof, actually, is on you: come up with any reason to clone that is separate and distinct from giving birth and has nothing to do with harvesting.

Then there are all the legal problems with cloning. The mother is the mother, but the father isn't the father until he legally adopts. Of course, neither the mother or the mother is the actual parent--there is no biological parent. But right now, the person the kid pops out of is always the mother.

However, the actual parents would be the mother and father of the person who was cloned.

That's just one of many problems I can see.

576. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:47:49 AM

children aren't exact dups of an existing (or previously existed) human being.

thus, the clone is redundant and shouldn't be created in the first place. if it is, then i see no (a) value of a dup and (b) why society should tolerate more demands on limited resources from people already in existence.

i feel if we are hard on this on the front-end then the 'social issues' will be substantially lessoned.

577. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:49:46 AM

insert reason in between (b) & why in my Message # 576

578. Ronski - 4/16/2001 11:54:18 AM

I think everything should be allowed unless there is a damn good reason not to.

579. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:55:17 AM

CalGal

I've searched a couple dozen sites, but I haven't found reference to genetic problems.
I found:

• Suggestions that cloning is hard (resulting in miscarriages)
  
• Possibility that Dolly may have been "older" than her chronological age
  
• A cow that died early from anemia
  

580. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 11:57:46 AM

Re: Message # 578, Ronski.

I think everything should be allowed unless there is a damn good reason not to.

you don't think (a) over population (b) needless law complications (c) needless social strife are valid reasons not to clone?

581. CalGal - 4/16/2001 11:59:01 AM

Dusty,

I will. I've looked myself and can't find it, so I can understand your skepticism. But I did read it, and just recently. It was in one of the major publications--Time, the Times, something. The mice suddenly got fat when they hit puberty--grotesquely fat.

582. Dusty - 4/16/2001 11:59:03 AM

CalGal

What proof is needed? We have a perfectly good way of reproducing human life.

The burden of proof, actually, is on you: come up with any reason to clone that is separate and distinct from giving birth and has nothing to do with harvesting.

583. Dusty - 4/16/2001 12:02:01 PM

rubberducky

Does this mean that if you had twins, you could declare one of them a "dup" and treat it as property? Even killing it if you were worried about impact on resources? The law doesn't agree with you.

584. Dusty - 4/16/2001 12:04:02 PM

rubberducky

you don't think (a) over population (b) needless law complications (c) needless social strife are valid reasons not to clone?

585. CalGal - 4/16/2001 12:07:20 PM

Does this mean you support a ban on IVF, and other artificial ways of helping the birth process?

No, because IVF is still creating life by merging ova and sperm. In fact, IVF is the reason there is no need for cloning.

What basis do you have for assuming that the burden of proof is on me?

Because it is. We have a means of creating life. Every possible reason you can come up with for using cloning is available with that method (save guaranteed harvesting).

So if you want to throw a non-standard creation method that has serious risks, I think you need to justify it. The only justification I can see is body parts, which I think is generally agreed to be reprehensible.

If you can't provide a reason other than that, then the discussion isn't actually about cloning, it's about what rights you yourself have--and that discussion is the same no matter what the issue is. It's hardly exclusive to cloning.

But in the matter of cloning specifically, the discussion pretty much ends until someone can articulate a reason that isn't "I need some more body parts". That way lies human rights problems on top of the obvious legal problems already mentioned.

586. Ronski - 4/16/2001 12:07:49 PM

rubberducky,

First, I do not believe the world is overpopulated. Second, what do you mean by "needless" law complications? We have a legal system expressly to resolve the disputes that occur between people. And third, what social strife are you talking about? I do not consider the debate we are having here on the subject to be strife.

587. Ronski - 4/16/2001 12:10:38 PM

If a scientist has the means to clone someone, and an individual has both the desire and the financial resources to be bring it about, it is no one else's business, and certainly not the government's.

588. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 12:13:09 PM

Re: Message # 583 & Message # 584, Dusty.

Does this mean that if you had twins, you could declare one of them a "dup" and treat it as property?

nope. we are both well aware that a clone is a different animal (no pun intended) than a twin. one is an exact duplicate down to the DNA level, one merely has some of the same traits

The law doesn't agree with you.

i already said as much in Message # 554

Those arguments could support mandatory sterilization. I hope you don't support that?

depends on the application. but that's not really the point. the point is why allow something that will do nothing but disrupt the current society with the only real net gain going to the population of a rapidly overcrowding earth?

589. Ronski - 4/16/2001 12:16:20 PM

The question is not why should this be allowed, but rather, why should it be banned, since that appears to be what is being advocated here. I don't see any strong case being made for the banning.

590. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 12:27:08 PM

Re: Message # 586, Ronski.

First, I do not believe the world is overpopulated.

perhaps, but surely an examination of birth rates and the projected populations of China, India, and some others over the next 50 yrs would point out that we are starting to get into a problem with the world's population. but, again, the point is why add to the developing problem with an artificial means when the current conventional means is very much working?

... what do you mean by "needless" law complications?

just that we have so much going on i see the entire legal undertaking wrt clones as unnecessary and, just as the clone is, redundant. i'd rather concentrate on other matters.

I do not consider the debate we are having here on the subject to be strife.

not yet, but i was speaking more to the widespread debate that will occur. i suspect it'll be similar to abortion. why invite more problems?

591. Dusty - 4/16/2001 12:32:57 PM

rubberducky

nope. we are both well aware that a clone is a different animal (no pun intended) than a twin. one is an exact duplicate down to the DNA level, one merely has some of the same traits

592. Ronski - 4/16/2001 12:34:02 PM

rubberducky,

Thank you for your explanation, but I still don't think you make your case. Almost every new development in science and technology has brought out people to decry it as disruptive or damaging or evil, usually without the slightest foundation.

As for overpopulation, the trends suggest the opposite of what you are saying. Human beings are not merely consumers of resources, they are the producers of them as well. And as today's nations mature and gain wealth, their birth rate drops significantly.

593. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 12:36:39 PM

Dusty:

A clone is ethically and legally distinguishable, but I don't think it is biologically distinguishable.

um, no. what law are you reading there?

594. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 12:40:25 PM

Ronski:

it is possible to me that an answer to the over population problem will arise, it just isn't probable. humans are simply not going to curb themselves any time soon which is why i'm pretty much against an artificial means to ramp up production of more people who really aren't necessary (no, i'm not going to say who is and isn't necessary - just that clones of people previously in existence aren't)

i never said cloning was 'evil', just that the utility derived from it doesn't overcome the negatives as i see it.

595. Ronski - 4/16/2001 1:07:54 PM

rubberducky,

But what gives you (I mean this the nicest possible way) or anybody else the right to ban anything that is simply of questionable utility?

As for human beings curbing themselves, they do it all the time. Some European countries have or are approaching negative birth rates. The population disasters predicted for places like China and India have not happened.

596. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:13:42 PM

Re:Message # 595, Ronski.

But what gives you (I mean this the nicest possible way) or anybody else the right to ban anything that is simply of questionable utility?

er, the gov't does t everyday. perhaps not on a utility standard, but on some level the scales or cost/benefit are there with every aspect of your life that an all powerful gov't has allowed you to have. from your 'rights' to your property, all of it is at the good grace of Uncle Sam. i don’t see why this new scientific development would be any different.

597. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:16:53 PM

dammit

t = that

598. Dusty - 4/16/2001 1:17:54 PM

I don't claim this site to be unbiased, but it is an interesting list:

All the Reasons to Clone Human Beings

Samples:
To cure infertility
Bad parents
To be a better parent
Because of the special relationship that twins have
Gay couples

599. Ronski - 4/16/2001 1:23:33 PM

rubberducky,

Perhaps we have a different view of what constitutes a right. I hold to the notion that the government gets its power from the governed.

That the government bans or has banned certain activities (aiding runaway slaves, intimate relations between adults of the same sex, etc.) adds no moral legitimacy to the argument here.

600. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 1:29:01 PM

Cloning- to offset abortions.

601. Dusty - 4/16/2001 1:30:33 PM

rubberducky

er, the gov't does t everyday.

602. Dusty - 4/16/2001 1:35:18 PM

rubberducky
Source

So, what exactly is a clone?

There are actually many definitions of a clone. Anything that was produced asexually could be considered a clone, for example, a plant that was produced by grafting. For humans, a clone would be considered anything that is genetically identical to another person. So a natural clone would be an identical twin.
Will a clone have the same fingerprints as the person (s)he was cloned from?

A clone is the same as having an identical twin that was born several years or decades after you, so s(he) will have a different set of fingerprints.

603. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:39:37 PM

Ronski:

the government has all the weapons and power. thus, they rule. they are benevolent dictators, yes, but we are just lucky.

but then again, i'm a pessimist paranoid.

604. Ronski - 4/16/2001 1:41:43 PM

The government does not have all the weapons. The second amendment reserves some of those weapons to the people. The rest of the constitution and bill of rights also gives the people the weapon of the ballot box.

605. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:42:46 PM

Re: Message # 601 & Message # 602, Dusty.

Yes, they do. But this sounds like an argument against you.

not really. we don't have and i don't demand unfettered rights.

a different set of fingerprints you say? hmm. i didn't know that. i thought it was a 99.99999% perfect copy of a human

606. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:46:27 PM

oh, not all

but all the good uns

i'd rather have a chopper with one of those 200 bullet continuous bullet feeds supporting tanks and military jeeps than i would a whole pistol.

call me crazy.

607. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 1:49:13 PM

crazy

608. rubberducky - 4/16/2001 1:49:33 PM

hehe

609. Ronski - 4/16/2001 1:50:59 PM

Wrong way to look at it, imo.

Just count the number of pistols and rifles abroad in the land.

It's enough to give any potential dictator pause. All that house-to-house fighting to quell the population would be so very time-consuming and messy.

610. mgleason - 4/16/2001 2:09:19 PM

A useful timeline on recent developments in cloning, and Clonaid, the company set up by the Raelians referred to in the timeline.

611. Ronski - 4/16/2001 2:12:58 PM

Who will be performing at Clonaid, by the way?

612. mgleason - 4/16/2001 2:14:02 PM

The Elohim, of course.

613. Erin R. - 4/16/2001 2:17:42 PM

Clonaid...sounds like government assistance for clones.

614. mgleason - 4/16/2001 2:21:47 PM

You really should read about the Raelians:

RAËL -- the founder of a religious organization called the Raelian Movement which claims that life on earth was created scientifically in laboratories by extraterrestrials whose name (ELOHIM) is found in the Hebrew Bible and was mistranslated by the word "God", and which also claims that Jesus' resurrection was, in fact, a cloning performed by the ELOHIM -- announced today that he and a group of investors have set up a company named Valiant Venture Ltd which will offer a service called CLONAID® to provide assistance to would be parents willing to have a child cloned from one of them. This service offers a fantastic opportunity to parents with fertility problems or homosexual couples to have a child cloned from one of them.

. . . .

RAËL said: "Cloning will enable mankind to reach eternal life. The next step, like the ELOHIM with their 25,000 years of scientific advance, will be to directly clone an adult person without having to go through the growth process and to transfer memory and personality in this person. Then, we wake up after death in a brand new body just like after a good night sleep!"

615. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 2:22:09 PM

Clonaid...sounds like government assistance for clones


Future multi-mega-rockband cause.

616. JudithAtHome - 4/16/2001 2:29:46 PM

Clonaid...

Laxative...definitely.

617. labwabbit - 4/16/2001 2:36:13 PM

Laxative...definitely
I'm afraid I'm missing the point on that one gorgeous.

Good things about cloning:
1)Offset abortions. (mentioned earlier)
2)Makes "go f*** yourself...possible.

Bad thing about cloning:
(See above)

618. Dusty - 4/16/2001 2:52:15 PM

In an eerie coincidence RAËL is available for public speeches about human cloning for a fee of 100 000 US $. the same price as Clinton, and neither are scheduled to speak at Stanford.

619. mgleason - 4/16/2001 3:05:49 PM

SF fans should check out CJ Cherryh's Cyteen for a thought-provoking novel dealing with cloning.

620. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:09:55 PM

Dusty,

Re: Message # 598

Are you sure that site isn't a joke? I read most of the reasons they think cloning should be allowed and it looks pretty satirical to me. If they're serious then I think they're a bunch of nut-bars.

You mentioned the following examples:

To cure infertility
Bad parents
To be a better parent
Because of the special relationship that twins have
Gay couples

I don't see why cloning is an appropriate or necessary answer to any of these things.

Infertility & Gay Couples: There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted. There is no "right" to bear a child of one's own body how ever much one might wish it. Cloning in this instance harms society in that it offers an alternative to providing homes for children already in existence. This is of course based on my value judgement that hoardes of children being raised by the state is less desirable than providing permanent homes for those children. If you want to raise a child there are plenty of them out there who need parents.

Bad Parents: I have to include the excerpt here -
Did your parents destroy your life? Were they alcoholic, child-beating molesters? Did you never have a chance? Interestingly, human cloning allows you the opportunity to participate in choosing the parents for your clone.
Are they serious? This reads like the worst of late night Ginsu commercials. The clone isn't YOU. It's not a time machine in which you can travel back and re-create your perfect childhood. This is a totally separate human being who would do far better than to have a parent so obsessed with his own childhood that he wants someone else to relive it for him according to his gameplan.


cont.

621. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:10:21 PM

cont.


To Be a Better Parent: This doesn't change the parent it changes the child. Instead of a unique individual who looks sort of like you, you get a unique individual who looks exactly like you misleading you into beliving that you know everything there is to know about this totally unique individual. Rather than being a better parent it is far more likely that the parent would constantly be expecting the child to behave and feel and think as he himself does----a lousy parent if ever there was one. Additionally, in my experience most people aren't particularly introspective nor do they really know all that much about the workings of their own minds. Even psychotherapists don't treat themselves.

Because of the special relationship that twins have

What? We should all be able to experience the special relationship that SOME sets of twins have? That's a reason to clone? We're going to start cloning folks so that we can experience the latest fad in relationships? What about people who'd like to have the special kind of relationship that exists between a stalker and his victim? Or the special kind of relationship that can exist between a favorite uncle and his neice? Okay, okay, I'm ranting, but I just couldn't help myself.

cont.

622. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:10:33 PM

cont.


There are plenty of other examples on that site but most of them are just amazingly silly. The not so silly ones are still outrageous.

In the case of organ transplants and other medical harvesting I'm amazed that this is acceptable to people. How would you like to know that the only reason you were brought into existence was to provide spare parts for someone else?

There seems to be no acknowledgement of the difference between one's self and the clone. They're just totally separate people who look like us. It's like having a doppelganger. He doesn't share your memories or experiences or values. He can't relive your childhood or satisfy your dreams for you. If you always wanted to be a concert pianist but lost your fingers in a freak bowling accident your MiniMe can't give you the satisfaction of that life by picking up where you left off.

This is the main problem that I see so far. It isn't a "future" problem. It's already in existence. Clones aren't robots that look like us they are people who look like us. They have all the same rights that we do. They aren't giant dolls to act out our fantasies and as human beings they shouldn't be used as organ factories.


So far I see one and only one acceptable situation for cloning and that's the continuation of endangered and/or extinct species or, in the event that we are able to, the cloning of particular organs.

623. mgleason - 4/16/2001 3:14:57 PM

There's already one case (that I know of) where parents had another child specifically to attempt to save the life of one that was dying (bone marrow transplant, I think).

624. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:19:06 PM

Maria,

Yep, I've heard about it happening. A couple years ago there was a story of one such incident on the cover of Readers Digest. Everything worked out wonderfully well for all parties involved, but it remains to be seen whether the younger child will grow up to resent her birth and her family.

625. Ronski - 4/16/2001 3:25:47 PM

By Ms. No's standard, having children through regular intercourse "clearly harms society" by first failing to adopt all those "children already in existence."

626. mgleason - 4/16/2001 3:26:58 PM

I don't know what to think about that case, Christin. I can understand trying everything to save the life of someone you love, but the fact is that the other child was basically created for spare parts.

627. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:34:55 PM

Ronski,

If you were attempting to quote me you've got a serious typographical error. If you were not attempting to quote me then you shouldn't have used quotation marks. Also, the conclusion you've drawn does not follow from what I said.

628. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:37:27 PM

Maria,

Yeah, that's what was icky about it for me too. It isn't that they don't love the child or that the child was forced to be a donor or anything, it's just that the child's value wasn't initially for her own sake but for her utility regarding their other child.

629. CalGal - 4/16/2001 3:41:49 PM

Maria,

I read Cyteen. It ended very badly and abruptly, but was terrific through the middle.

I disagree that children who were created on the offchance that they would have matching bone marrow are a problem. For one thing, there is no guarantee. For another, most parents make deliberate choices to have children for all sorts of reasons. If they are the sort who would not love or care for the second child, then they'd be lousy parents no matter what. If they are good and loving parents, they will love the second child either way.

If a couple had a dying child and they chose to have another because they didn't want to be childless, would that be wrong? What if they had a child because they wanted their healthy kid to have a sibling?

There are all sorts of reasons to have more children. Provided the parent can't deliberately harvest their child's organs (which should always be illegal), I see no problem in having a child on the offchance that they might be a bone marrow match. It's not like the child is losing anything.

Cloning, on the other hand, is purely for harvesting body parts.

630. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 3:42:23 PM

A friend of mine works in cryogenics -- specifically freezing "stem cells" from the umbilical chord at birth. I don't remember the whole list of things that they're supposed to be an aid for, but I don't have a problem with this at all.

It's cells from a person's own umbilical chord that are preserved in the event of specific illnesses----leukemia, sicle-cell, several other things I can't recall right now. There's still lots of research going on about how these cells might be used to treat or cure other illnesses particularly immuno-deficiencies and blood disorders.

631. CalGal - 4/16/2001 3:43:59 PM

Twins are not clones. Twins are duplicates of each other, but they were formed through conception--sperm and egg meet and get it on.

Gay couples are of either the male or female variety. Lesbians can do IVF, turkey basters, or AI. No need to clone. Gay men will always have to either rent a womb or adopt a kid, no matter what method is used. Cloning offers them nothing that existing technology doesn't already put on the table.

632. Ronski - 4/16/2001 3:51:31 PM

Ms. No,

Remove the word "clearly" and my post stands. You said that gay and infertile couples should not clone a child because it harms society not to adopt children first. By that same reasoning, it harms society to have any children without first adopting all the parentless children.

633. CalGal - 4/16/2001 3:56:28 PM

But gay male couples (women can opt to have children at any time) and infertile couples have no reason to clone, since they have IVF.

Your reasoning comes down to, "I wanna do it this way and I don't think you should stop me." But as I said earlier, that's philosophical, not any sort of justification for cloning. There is nothing cloning provides that biological reproduction can't provide--except spare body parts.

634. Ronski - 4/16/2001 4:03:23 PM

First of all, I don't want to do it this way. I find cloning yucky, like most people, and prefer that people adopt the children already around than to do handsprings to create new ones.

But we are discussing whether cloning should be forbidden (justifying it as an individual choice is another matter). And the burden of proof should be on those who are calling on government to ban such procedures. No one has demonstrated that any particular harm will come of them.

As for wanting to do things one's own way, call it liberty, freedom, the sovereignty of the individual or whatever you like, but it's a concept worth defending.

635. CalGal - 4/16/2001 4:07:38 PM

And the burden of proof should be on those who are calling on government to ban such procedures.

No, it's not. This is, as I said, a philosophical issue. In fact, the government can ban any old thing it wants to. There is certainly no constitutional right involved.

I have made more than one post on the harm that would surely result.

636. CalGal - 4/16/2001 4:08:20 PM

As for it being your own personal view, I was speaking rhetorically.

637. Ronski - 4/16/2001 4:12:03 PM

There is perhaps no constitutional right to clone (although that remains to be seen, given the Court's ability to create just about any right it wishes), but there certainly is an expectation that government action should have some sort of palpable justification. Squeamishness about the frontiers of science is not one of them. A clear and present danger to society should be the measure. Where has anyone demonstrated that? Not here, certainly.

638. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 4:21:26 PM

Ronski,

I found myself getting irritated and then I realized that maybe you really didn't understand the difference that I just assumed was evident.

It's one thing for a naturally occuring phenomenon to have risks for society. It is another thing entirely to manufacture a phenomenon which poses risks to society.

I'm not about to seriously contend that all people should be sterilized at birth until there are no children left to adopt but I don't see why the rights of children to be well cared for should be trumped by the desires of those who wish to raise only their own flesh and blood.

If you really want to be a parent then the opportunity is there. If you cannot love and care for a child just because it isn't flesh of your flesh then I'd argue that you are too narcissitic to be a good parent in the first place.

639. Shannon - 4/16/2001 4:24:06 PM

So should all fertility treatments be illegal, then? They're no different from cloning in that regard.

640. Ronski - 4/16/2001 4:31:49 PM

Ms. No,

I agree with you, philosophically, about the preference of adopting the tons of children, around the world, who need good homes.

But I don't think that this viewpoint necessitates using the vast power of the government to force others to behave similarly.

I do not see the same magnitude of difference you do between doing what comes naturally and intervening technologically in the process. Many people have objected to invitro fertilization because it seems unnatural to them. The Vatican objects to birth control to this very day because it seems unnatural or contrary to God's will to the folks there.

I don't see that any dangers to society from cloing have truly been proven; I don't think many people will want to do it anyway; and I think we should not be in the business of forbidding narcisists from having children, whatever means they use.

It seems reasonable to forbid government-funded research in this area, but not to forbid it outright.

641. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 4:48:17 PM

Shannon,

If the only issue with cloning was whether or not to use it as a viable method of providing children to totally infertile couples I might be less vehement but that's just not the case.

Homosexual couples can have children "of their flesh" through ovum and sperm donation and surrogate wombs if they so choose.

642. vw - 4/16/2001 4:54:56 PM

I think one point that is being missed in the conversation is that there is a difference between cloning body parts and cloning a body for parts.

When having this conversation many people envision a fully formed human adult clone floating around in a tank filled with amber fluid waiting for you to get done fucking up your kidney and liver.

The reality is that full body cloning for parts is not likely to happen for three major reasons.

1. It’s inefficient and not cost effective. Cloning entire human being is going to remain a highly expensive prospective for quite a while. The initial “conception” cost and then the cost of maintaining and raising your clone on the off chance that you might one day maybe need a bone marrow transplant is hard to justify.
   
2. Wrong sized organs. For a large part of the clones “life” its organs are going to be smaller and less developed than your own, unless your folks started a “new” you before you left your womb.
   
3. Genetics only accounts for so much. Unless you can go back in time and implant your clone into your mother’s womb at the same moment of your conception (duh, now you’re a twin) you will never really have an identical match with yourself. The fetal environment of the womb (hormone levels, diet, illnesses, blood type, etc of the woman carrying the fetus) will play a significant part in the development of your little fetal clone. It is possible that despite having your genetic make-up your clone, birthed from a different womb, could very well have developmental differences that would make him or her unsuitable for some forms of body part donation.

643. vw - 4/16/2001 4:55:02 PM

What is possible (and should be researched) is the cloning of a single needed body part. In this scenario, your life of raucous debauchery has left you in desperate need of a new liver. It is conceivable that by removing a few undifferentiated cells from your body and applying the proper “signals” in the form of hormones and enzymes that you could have a brand new “liver in a jar” ready for transplantation.

This approach makes more sense, both in terms of efficiency and ethics.

Quite frankly, the cost, time, hassle and risk of growing a clone to adulthood seems to be prohibitive of any of the “imagined” reasons why anyone would want to do it.

644. CalGal - 4/16/2001 5:14:22 PM

Now see, that I would have no trouble with. I assumed we were talking about cloning people. Body parts is perfectly fine, even if it's expensive.

645. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 5:15:31 PM

Ronski,

using the vast power of the government to force others to behave similarly

No one is being forced to do anything. They're simply being told that if they want to raise children Cloning is not an option available to them. If you want ice cream and I tell you that you can't have Strawberry I haven't forced you to eat Butter Pecan.

I do not see the same magnitude of difference you do between doing what comes naturally and intervening technologically in the process.

I'm not against technology nor am I particularly concerned about most medical technology improving the quality of life etc. I'm not so enamoured of technological advancement, however, that I belive we ought to run right out and do things just because we can. The implications of cloning human beings are vastly farther reaching than whether or not the Smiths baby was conceived in a test tube.

I don't see that any dangers to society from cloing have truly been proven.

Think of the FDA (likely not one of your favorite institutions but useful nonetheless). They don't approve experimental drugs and wait for them to be proven harmful. The burden of proof is on the manufacturer to show that the drug is not harmful. Likewise, if you want to promote Cloning you have to prove that it isn't harmful. I haven't seen anyone yet talk about the PEOPLE involved. Cloning makes commodities of human beings in the worst sort of way. It is harmful to society for us to view one another as expendable replaceable bits and pieces to be shopped for on a whim.

I think we should not be in the business of forbidding narcisists from having children

No one is forbidding them from having children. We're just not enabling them to clone themselves.

646. Ms. No - 4/16/2001 5:18:31 PM

VW & CG,

Yep, me too. I don't have a problem with cloning parts since after all "parts is parts", but cloning people is totally out of bounds in my book.

647. dusty - 4/16/2001 6:47:26 PM

Ms. No

I appreciate your response. I linked to that site with trepidation, because some of the reasons were pretty weak in my book. I only listed it because CG was claiming there were no other reasons besides organ harvest.

I don't understand your response to Ronski. He should have been a bit more careful. You didn't say "clearly harms society" but you did say "harms society". I was going to say that Ronski beat me to the point, but I'll restate it.

If cloning "harms society" by reducing the demand for adoption, then so does having a child the old-fashioned way. Why is one acceptable, and not the other?

648. dusty - 4/16/2001 6:54:08 PM

CalGal
No, it's not.
Only because you have guns. It isn't philosphically justified. In fact, I suspect good philosophy would argue the opposite.
What harm have you identified?

649. dusty - 4/16/2001 6:57:12 PM

Ms. No

It's one thing for a naturally occuring phenomenon to have risks for society. It is another thing entirely to manufacture a phenomenon which poses risks to society.

650. dusty - 4/16/2001 6:59:25 PM

vw

IIRC, someone is working on growing human ears on the back of a rat. I'm sure there are other body part experiments in progress, altohugh I don't recall whether they involve clones.

651. dusty - 4/16/2001 7:05:48 PM

CalGal Message # 631
Twins are not clones.

From Bella Online:
According to the Roslin Institute identical twins are natures clones.

652. dusty - 4/16/2001 7:10:22 PM

Although, interestingly:

By now you are probably beginning to understand why Dr. Nancy Segal, the chair of the Twin Studies Department at Cal State Fullerton, writes in her latest book "Twins and Twinning" that "identical twins are clones, but clones are not identical twins." They’re just too different. [emphasis added]

Source

653. CalGal - 4/16/2001 7:21:36 PM

Let's not confuse analogical hyperbole committed in the name of marketing with actual assertions, please.

Let me guess--Roslin Institute is an organization that benefits from greater acceptance of cloning?

In any event, there is plenty wrong with that analogy. Identical twins are conceived with sperm and egg. They are conceived at the same time.

I would be interested in seeing how they claim that nature plans and commits clones. Of course, if twins are nature's clones, nature doesn't seem to think we should have that many clones, either.

Then there's the not insignificant fact that, since we are talking about an unnatural process, it really doesn't matter much what "nature" does.

So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the notion that twins are clones. They aren't clones. They are a naturally occurring process in the ordinary biological conception that results in two genetically identical human beings. That has nothing to do with using a cell to manipulate a human being into existence.

654. joezan - 4/16/2001 7:34:04 PM

The ear on the rat thing is a far cry from cloning, although, who knows what it could lead to?

Basically, in that procedure the shape of the ear (which would normally be defined by its cartilege "skeleton") is formed from synthetic material, and human skin is grown over it, using the mouse for nourishment.

Basically, it's a skin graft - and, imo a freak show, because there is nothing to prevent scientists from using the same technology to grow the ear on the body of the person who needs it.

655. jexster - 4/16/2001 8:13:14 PM

Dunno whether this belongs in Religion or here or both but as I tend to see Fundies less in religious terms than in social ones....

Evangelical Christian Gays

For more than a quarter century, through Evangelicals Concerned, Ralph Blair has been working to reconcile gays and lesbians with the evangelical Christian churches that have so often rejected them. His most popular pamphlet is a folded sheet of paper whose cover says, "What Jesus Christ Said About Homosexuality." On the inside it is totally blank.

Independent Gay Forum

Also a good excuse to post a link to what is unquestionably the most thoughtful and thought provoking source for things gay, social, and political.

656. dusty - 4/16/2001 8:32:43 PM

CalGal

So I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the notion that twins are clones.

657. CalGal - 4/16/2001 8:42:42 PM

Why on earth would you say "No offense" when clearly you mean to give it? Really, Dusty, you should pay more attention to what you say.

I did not say that market forces have nothing to do with supply and demand, you dolt. But that's in another thread. I suggest you restrain your ire to the appropriate thread.

And in your ire, you zapped right by the rebuttal that is on point no matter how much you buy into propaganda:

Then there's the not insignificant fact that, since we are talking about an unnatural process, it really doesn't matter much what "nature" does.


Really, saying that twins are "nature's" clones is rather like saying that time is "nature's" nuclear weapon--it kills all living beings, so it's the same thing.

658. Cellar Door - 4/16/2001 8:47:04 PM

April 16, 2001, Monday 5:22 PM Eastern Time
SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT, TELEVISION, AND CULTURE

DISTRIBUTION: TO ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR

LENGTH: 200 words

HEADLINE: Steven Spielberg Declines Further Term on Boy Scouts Advisory Board

DATELINE: LOS ANGELES, April 16

BODY: Statement from Steven Spielberg:

"The last few years in scouting have deeply saddened me to see the Boy Scouts of America actively and publicly participating in discrimination. It's a real shame. I thought the Boy Scouts stood for equal opportunity, and I have consistently spoken out publicly and privately against intolerance and discrimination based on ethnic, religious, racial, and sexual orientation. "While I have had no active direct role in the Scouts there are still many people who assume I support every current policy --and the discriminatory policy -- because my name is attached to the Advisory Board. To avoid any further misunderstanding, I have chosen to decline another term on the Advisory Board while continuing to encourage -- for the good of scouting -- efforts to end this intolerance and discrimination once and for all. "Once scouting fully opens its doors to all who desire the same experience that so fully enriched me as a young person, I will be happy to reconsider a role on the Advisory Board."

SOURCE Steven Spielberg

659. dusty - 4/16/2001 9:14:54 PM

CalGal

Why on earth would you say "No offense" when clearly you mean to give it?

661. CalGal - 4/16/2001 9:32:07 PM

Oh, don't be an ass. Calling someone annoying is, by definition, offensive. Unless, of course, you suspect me of trying to annoy you and wish to generously compliment me on how well I have achieved that goal. There's not even that out for "who the fuck cares what you think" which is completely offensive. If you didn't mean to give offense, then I suggest you read up on playing nice with others.

You did not make a "perfectly reasonable" statement and you "backed it up" by quoting pro-cloning sites that are reaching for an analogy that makes their case. Then, when I rebutted, using that questionable data, you ignored it: namely, even if you call twins "nature's clones", it's impossible to pretend that they are the same thing. The differences between nature and man-made, in this case, is akin to the difference between the passage of time and nuclear war as destructive forces.

You aren't contributing when you insist that you know the only rationale in favor of cloning (despite proof to the contrary

You have offered no proof to the contrary. You haven't even addressed the question--in fact, you refused to. You certainly have not provided the simple justification I requested: a case where cloning would be the only solution possible and would not involve harvesting. (In other words, a solution where IVF or AI did not provide the same thing.)

As for having an "ethical discussion" of cloning, my point is that you haven't cleared the barrier to entry: justify the need for cloning apart from harvesting, which is (one assumes) unethical by definition. Your only justification is, "Because I don't believe the government should be able to stop me." But that's a government discussion, not a cloning discussion. Since you have no need for cloning, I fail to see how you can even justify it.

662. dusty - 4/16/2001 9:38:16 PM

As for having an "ethical discussion" of cloning, my point is that you haven't cleared the barrier to entry: justify the need for cloning apart from harvesting, which is (one assumes) unethical by definition.

663. CalGal - 4/16/2001 9:39:29 PM

That will be limited to people who agree with you. I didn't realize that you were so limited in your capacity for discussion. I suppose I should be surprised.

665. vw - 4/17/2001 8:58:23 AM

Posts 660 and 664 removed.

Please remember, if it's a one-liner snipe with no on-topic content, don't waste my time and yours by posting it. Thanks.

668. vw - 4/17/2001 9:19:48 AM

I'm not buying your barrier to entry.

You should. There will be barriers and they will be steep because cloning is in fact creating a human life that must be treated with the full compliment of rights and considerations.

The bottom line is that we are still fumbling around in the dark when it comes to cloning. We have not been able to consistently reproduce results, new errors keep creeping in and even when we get it right, we aren’t quite sure why. Dolly the Infamous is only one out of tens of thousands of experiments of varying stages of development that were preformed. Some of those attempts were full term pregnancies that either miscarried or were terminated due to their deformities.

We SHOULD NOT be toying with human cloning until we understand why it goes wrong and why it goes right. Let one idiot rogue researcher deliver and then “cover-up” a horribly deformed human clone and every science fearing Bio-Luddite will have the fuel needed to burn down Clone Research before we even begin to understand it.

The New Scientist has a couple of good articles on this topic.

669. vw - 4/17/2001 9:25:13 AM

Some more articles of note from New Scientist.

We won't need to clone embryos if we can recycle adult cells instead

Clone killer

670. Dusty - 4/17/2001 10:00:31 AM

vw

I am in more agreement with your post than you might imagine. I said earlier we should go slow. I would support a voluntary moratorium on human cloning until we know a lot more about it. The prospect of destroying an animal clone gone wrong is distateful, but orders of magnitude less problematic than with a human.
That said, I was addressing who gets to make the rules. If scientists show reasonable restraint (and I recognize this creates an opening), I think scientists should decide when they are ready. If scientists believe they are ready, and others disagree, I suggest that the opponents have to make the case.


Thanks for the links.

671. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 10:07:43 AM

It seems to me that cloning oneself is the height of vanity.

672. Indiana Jones - 4/17/2001 10:16:11 AM

It seems to me that cloning oneself is the height of vanity.

Cloning yourself so you can have the perfect sexual partner--now that's the height of something.

673. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 10:17:55 AM

The height of Ick...

674. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 10:22:51 AM

Cloning your child to protect against an established probability of genetic dysfunction?

675. rubberducky - 4/17/2001 10:28:04 AM

i guess if twins are clones or whatever then i'd like to see clones developed with no head or something so that there would be no problem with organ harvesting.

and, again, if you presuppose that harvesting is out of the picture, then i presuppose no real benefit to cloning and oppose it on those grounds.

676. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 10:30:08 AM

But what about just growing the organs? No problems with rights and ethics there...

677. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 10:34:55 AM

Cloning your child to protect against an established probability of genetic dysfunction?

What do you mean? In the event a couple carry genes that present a high risk for congenital defect they might wish to clone themselves? It seems to me that there are many options other than cloning, including not having children, adopting, or using donor sperm or egg.

Standard sexual reproduction has built in advantages for the propogation of the species, doesn't it?

678. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 10:38:12 AM

Bubba...as in spare parts to replace defective ones. The identical immunolgical and genetic match is desirable.

679. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 10:38:20 AM

I agree, bubbaette...but then, I think there should be more adoptions and less fertility clinics.

680. JudithAtHome - 4/17/2001 10:41:57 AM

Okay, maybe I have the wrong concept here...PP, are you talking about cloning a child, as in creating another human being? Not just the parts?

681. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 10:43:10 AM

PP

I don't have a problem with that as long as it doesn't involve the cloning of a subordinate individual from whom to harvest organs -- an auxillary kid.

682. Cellar Door - 4/17/2001 10:44:07 AM

Twins are definitely worth studying as a pehnomenon re. cloning. The twins I've known have either been in complete, matter-of-fact harmony or at loggerheads. In the latter category one twin is doing eveything in his power to disassociate himself from the other. Yet the only way to do so is constant comparasion and contrast -- thus bringing the hated other back into his life.

I remember one set of twins I knew in New York. Very singular-looking guys to begin with -- about five steps short of what would odinarily be called "ugly." One twin was gay, the other straight. The gay twin (my friend) was a very nice guy. Easygoing, affable. His brother was in a constant rage about everything. It was amazing to see the two of them talking together -- exactly like someone arguing with himself in a mirror.

683. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 10:46:13 AM

I was refering to harvesting, but the concept of a separate individual is an interactive problem here. I don't know what I think...the issues overwhelm me, to tell it straight.

684. Dusty - 4/17/2001 11:44:03 AM

PsychProf

I know that twin studies form an important part of psychological study—is this something you've studied to any extent?

I assume that psychologists would be interested in studying clones, also I understand any reticence in creating them simply for the purpose of study.

685. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 11:49:15 AM

Dusty...it is not an area I am professionally trained and/or expert in.


FOR DUSTY

686. Dusty - 4/17/2001 11:54:50 AM

rubberducky

i guess if twins are clones or whatever then i'd like to see clones developed with no head or something so that there would be no problem with organ harvesting.

687. Dusty - 4/17/2001 12:00:17 PM

PP
Thanks for the link.

I was surprised at the conclusion in this sentence:

In addition to these large, (somewhat) controlled studies, there were a few case studies of twins' secret language, with the assumption that this inter-twin language was related to the delays experienced with the culturally transmitted languge (Luria & Yudovich 1959; Zazzo 1960). These are not terribly helpful to the general issue.

688. thoughtful - 4/17/2001 12:03:50 PM

My cousin can vouch for the secret language thing as she witnessed it in her own twins.

689. Dusty - 4/17/2001 12:20:20 PM

Cellar Door

Do you know of any studies looking at the sexual orientation of twins? I wonder to what extent your example is typical.

690. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 12:22:26 PM

My nephews are identical twins. My sister never dressed them alike, had them get different haircuts, and was careful to be sure that families and teachers understand them and treat them as two separate individuals. So far as I know, they don't have a secret language and they have distinctly different personalities. Still, their poor aunt really has to pay attention not to confuse one for the other.

691. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 12:23:34 PM

BTW

They've been in a longitudinal study on twins at the Medical College of Virginia since they were tadpoles.

692. Cellar Door - 4/17/2001 12:26:50 PM

I have no idea, Dusty. I've also known twins where both were gay and got along real well (to put it mildly.) And I've known straight twins too.

693. Dusty - 4/17/2001 12:36:10 PM

bubbaette

I've never liked the dressing alike, and similar names for twins. One of my co-workers has triplets (21 months). I can't imagine dealing with that.

694. thoughtful - 4/17/2001 1:18:02 PM

I can't remember the number, but someone told me that identical twins have something like twice the likelihood of one being gay as non-twins....or something like that.

695. thoughtful - 4/17/2001 1:19:44 PM

and I do know of identical twins (female) where one is gay and one is not.

696. Ronski - 4/17/2001 1:33:50 PM

Dusty,

There are a few studies, going back to one by Franz Kallman at Columbia Univesity in the early 60s. They are not very conclusive, but they indicate a greater likelihood that identical twins will be gay, even if raised apart, than fraternal twins or siblings will be gay.

But there are indentical twins where one is gay and one is not. All this suggests that there may be a genetic component to gayness, but it is far from controlling.

Behavioral tendencies tend to be "complex" genetic traits, meaning more than one gene is involved, and more than likely to be influenced by other factors as well, such as upbringing and other life experiences. Varying chemical influences in the womb may also play a role.

In any case, most people I know who are gay say they felt they were born that way, including me.

697. LimeGirl - 4/17/2001 1:39:26 PM

I can't even imagine naming two of your children with names that start with the same letter. I wouldn't have enough brainpower to remember their names at all, if that was the case. I have a bad enough time keeping their names straight as it is.

698. thoughtful - 4/17/2001 1:45:29 PM

I'm always surprised, ronski, when people say that they've felt gay for as long as they can remember...I've felt hetero for as long as I can remember, and I don't ever remember making a conscious decision that guys were for me and not gals. It was just always how it was. That's why it surprises me that heteros often feel a need to ask gays that question and why they've never asked the question of themselves.

699. PsychProf - 4/17/2001 1:45:46 PM

TWINS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

700. bubbaette - 4/17/2001 1:47:52 PM

One of my co-workers has triplets (21 months). I can't imagine dealing with that.

Twins were certainly a handful for Sis and her hub --especially when she got home from work. When she was nursing, she'd be starving, the kids would be hungry and the house was in general uproar. After the boys got to the age where they could amuse themselves and were safe without constant supervision, the fact that each always had an age appropriate playmate made things easier.

701. Dusty - 4/18/2001 7:59:13 AM

PsychProf

Thanks, interesting reading.

One particularly interesting excerpt:
Katz (1995) argues that exclusive heterosexuality is a relatively recent invention, going back perhaps as far as the 1920's.

702. rubberducky - 4/18/2001 9:07:28 AM

Porn company sues to Webcast execution

On May 16, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is scheduled to be executed for killing 168 people six years ago.
Right now, only bombing victims, their families and select journalists will be allowed to watch the event live.

But Entertainment Media--a company that offers Voyeurdorm.com and Erotixmall.com--wants to broaden that audience by Webcasting the event live to millions of Internet users who fork over $1.95 a pop for the privilege. The company has sued the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the right to do so.

At a hearing Tuesday, a federal court in Indianapolis will hear arguments from both sides over whether to allow the Webcast. Although the debate over broadcasting executions is not new, this case marks the first time an Internet company has sued for those rights. Still, Entertainment Media's quest to show an execution live on the Internet to a broad audience looks like an uphill battle.

...

Steven Brill, CEO of Brill's Content magazine and founder of Court TV, has long favored putting cameras in courtrooms and death chambers. But he said Entertainment Media's decision to charge makes the case for televising executions more difficult.

"Someone is selling tickets to an execution. What about selling popcorn, too?" Brill wrote in an e-mail interview.

...

"It simply become a debate over who should get to watch. Just the families of dead victims? Those injured? Which relatives? Why not everyone in Oklahoma City? Well, then why not everyone else in the country who was traumatized by the bombing?"

The court will make a decision sometime after Tuesday's hearing.

i wouldn't pay to watch it but i would watch it if given the chance.

703. Erin R. - 4/18/2001 9:58:52 AM

I don't think there should be executions, period.

704. thoughtful - 4/18/2001 2:46:22 PM

Interesting connection with porn and killing...aren't snuff films illegal?

705. vw - 4/20/2001 9:41:15 AM

aren't snuff films illegal

Well yeah, presumably because the person being snuffed is being murdered as part of a planned production as opposed to 1) catching a murder on tape inadvertently or 2) filming a "legal" death as in the case of State Execution.

But apparently, snuff films just don't exist.

706. rubberducky - 4/20/2001 9:46:30 AM

well, the judge said no anyway - as if that is a huge surprise.

A federal judge late on Wednesday rejected an Internet company's request to broadcast over the Web the execution of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

U.S. District Court Judge John Tinder ruled that the Federal Bureau of Prisons' policy regulating the viewing of executions did not violate Entertainment Network's First Amendment rights. The ruling also applied to Liveontheweb.com, another company seeking to broadcast the execution over the Internet.

"(The plaintiffs)...seek not just to view the execution--they seek to film it and broadcast it simultaneously over the Internet so that anyone willing to pay a fee for viewing this event can do so," Tinder wrote in his 31-page decision for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. "What these media organizations seek is unprecedented in that a live media broadcast of an execution has never occurred in the history of the death penalty in this country."

707. vw - 4/20/2001 11:12:13 AM

Yup, no surprise there. I think they sealed their fate by making a pay per view event.

Profitting from displaying the death of anyone, even someone as repulsive as McVeigh, is just not right.

708. rubberducky - 4/20/2001 11:16:44 AM

i agree in a general sense, vw, but what if that $$ went to eh families of the victims of some sort on non-profit?

would that be more palatable?

709. rubberducky - 4/20/2001 11:18:49 AM

the = eh in my 708

710. ranheim - 4/20/2001 9:10:53 PM

I was talking with a Professor of Medicine one day last week. His comment on cloning "We are so far away from cloning a human that there is no one on earth today who will ever see it happen. IF IT HAPPENS BEFORE THAT, God help us all!"

711. jexster - 4/21/2001 1:30:43 PM

Roper Center Social Capital Benchmark Survey

About to be the bible for social issues.

712. Cellar Door - 4/21/2001 2:59:52 PM

There has already been enormous profit from McVeigh. He's half of cable "news" programming. And don't think it's going to stop after his death. MSNBC has a whole block of "re life" horror stories that they show over and over and over. Jeffrey Dahmer is a particular favorite with them.

713. Cellar Door - 4/21/2001 3:01:55 PM

Meanwhile elsewhere in the news, "Fallout."

714. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2001 4:34:47 PM

The McWeigh thing strengthens Europeans' prejudices about the US.

715. Cellar Door - 4/21/2001 4:35:47 PM

Really? I wouldn't be all that pleased about Bosnia.

716. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2001 4:39:11 PM

But Bosnia isn't the issue is it? Don't be a simpleton Cellar.

717. labwabbit - 4/21/2001 4:39:46 PM

The McWeigh thing strengthens Europeans' prejudices about the US.

Based on...?

Specific polls...?

As observed by...?

Representing what agency(s)...?

Gut feeling...?

Man on the street interviews...?


(Do we go this way again?)

718. labwabbit - 4/21/2001 4:41:26 PM

...just pulling your short hairs there Pelle.

719. PelleNilsson - 4/21/2001 4:47:58 PM

I know. What I'm specifically referring to is of course the televising of his execution. It gives me and many others (source: news articles) the creeps. I wonder if the audience behaviour will be recorded? If so will we see scenes of joy as a human is killed? Is this medieval or not?

720. Cellar Door - 4/21/2001 4:53:15 PM

"LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!"

721. joezan - 4/21/2001 4:54:01 PM

I don't know about you, Pelle. But if it were my family member killed in that incident, I'd cheer. And I am not pro DP.

Of course, I'd cheer much louder if the method was more....barbaric. I think that the more humane we make the act, the less sense there is in it.

722. labwabbit - 4/21/2001 5:08:56 PM

It gives me and many others (source: news articles) the creeps.

As it should give anybody (the creeps) who have more than 2.5 brain cells functioning consecutively.
I view (publicly) observed executions as accomplishing nothing more than a controller's visual to what would happen if you're a "bad-dog".

Study of the french revolution went far toward forming early views on that?

If present, (as in existing), socio-political enigma requires through popularity or decree, a need to execute as punishment then swift and deliberate it should be. Making a public spectacle of executions, as a sort of compromise between opposing forces in the capital punishment debate, is inherently wrong in both logic and intended purpose of the punishment.

723. jexster - 4/21/2001 9:37:26 PM

Anyone see the History Channel piece on the history of the guillotine from the FR to its demise...the first Executioner of France (France decided to have one executioner) went mad and killed himself.

Tells you all you need to know about the immorality from either a religious or a humanist perspective

724. vw - 4/21/2001 10:23:03 PM

but what if that $$ went to eh families of the victims of some sort on non-profit?

I don’t think that would make a difference for me. It’s not about either the victims’ families or even McViegh’s right to privacy.

It’s about not returning to a cultural era that allows a cavalier “pinic-basket” attitude about executions. The decision to allow the State to take a life is a weighty and solemn matter. IMO, it should not be commercialized into a public entertainment.

725. CalGal - 4/21/2001 10:51:24 PM

Am I the only person squicked out by the continual emphasis on the importance of "closure"?

What happens if the murderer of your loved one doesn't get the death penalty? or what if he dies while on death row? No closure? Oh, the tragedy.

726. Cellar Door - 4/21/2001 11:08:59 PM

For once we agree!

"Closure" is the polite psychobabble term for "Get Over It!"

But there's no such thing as "closure." Living with Loss is simply one more parade float on Life's Rich Pageant.

The only way to truly "get over it" is to die.

727. joezan - 4/21/2001 11:20:17 PM

Eh.

I'm anti DP.

But if I were one of the people who lost a family member in OKC, I'd pay to see McVeigh die.

...but only if it were a gruesome death.

728. CalGal - 4/21/2001 11:21:23 PM

But if you were anyone who'd lost a loved one by murder you'd pay to see him die.

729. joezan - 4/21/2001 11:25:04 PM

¿¿¿que???

730. CalGal - 4/21/2001 11:26:10 PM

Are you saying that you're anti dp but that only if your loved one had been blown up in a building by McVeigh that you'd want to see him die?

731. joezan - 4/21/2001 11:28:24 PM

Yeah.

I'd probably feel the same if anyone had killed my loved one.

732. mgleason - 4/21/2001 11:28:26 PM

The only closure comes with your own death and oblivion.

733. joezan - 4/21/2001 11:30:07 PM

...my point being, I don't see any sense in executions unless:
a) The guy suffers.
b) People get to watch.

734. arkymalarky - 4/21/2001 11:30:56 PM

The thing is (and I feel the same as Joe) that people want to candy-coat their desire for revenge with the euphemism "closure," which is acceptable, while revenge, though most of us want it deep down, is not. I have no problem with the concept of revenge, myself.

735. arkymalarky - 4/21/2001 11:31:54 PM

Um, not as Joe in 733.

736. CalGal - 4/21/2001 11:34:47 PM

Joe,

Exactly my point. Which is why I find all this national psychobabble about how the families will get closure when he dies to be quite silly. If closure only comes with the execution of the murderer, then the McVeigh victims' families are lucky, in comparison to most people who lose a loved ones to murder.

737. Autodaffy - 4/21/2001 11:36:48 PM

No, closure comes with the end of the evening news where they talk about closure so much. Closure follows the newscaster's incessant asking of victims and bystanders how they "feel about" the disaster that has befallen someone. Closure can also be achieved by a public rite, where everyone cries ostentatiously for the cameras. The attendance of a politician who feels the pain of the victims' relatives can also lead to closure. Beyond that, or lacking that, closure can be achieved by a qualified psychological counselor who is adequately paid for his services.

738. CalGal - 4/21/2001 11:42:30 PM

Auto,

Well, that's the thing. "Closure" itself isn't bad, but it's being used so broadly that the meaning is being lost altogether. Watching the guy who killed your kids die isn't closure. It's just something you do, or don't do.

739. joezan - 4/21/2001 11:48:08 PM

It's more than that, arky.

DP laws in this country probably do nothing to prevent crime, because too many of these scum attain martyrdom, or at least a measure of celebrity - which too often has way too much time to grow. Which satisfies not only their sick little narcissistic egos - but feeds that of the other scum who wish to emulate them.

If a person has committed a crime which is serious enough to be killed for, then make his life miserable: hold him 100% incommunicado; no TV, radio, or other connection with the outside world; let him never see another human being; let him sleep on a cement slab, naked...etc.

And when it's time for him to die, make it painful - the amount of pain to be commensurate with the degree of suffering he has caused -in McVeigh's case it would be hard to think of anything, but give me a few hours.

And let the only thing anyone ever hears or sees of the guy, from the minute he is sentenced, be his execution.

740. arkymalarky - 4/22/2001 12:55:51 AM

To use my favorite DanDillon quote:

Mmmm-hmmm.

BTW, we usually kill them without much pomp and circumstance in AR and TX is the same way.

741. PelleNilsson - 4/22/2001 3:47:11 AM

Amazing primitivism in Message # 739. I didn't think such existed among people who can demonstrably read and write.

742. joezan - 4/22/2001 7:23:00 AM

I realize that, Pelle. But I think that in many respects we have become a much too civilized society.

A little primitivism is good for the soul.

743. Cellar Door - 4/22/2001 9:36:02 AM

Speaking of "primitivism."

744. CalGal - 4/22/2001 4:33:54 PM

Sex Selected Abortions

You know, I'm not sure why this is considered such a tragedy. Sure, it's gruesome. But given that it is occurring in heavily overpopulated countries--who are also prone to value men--why not? Let them be morons. In the end, won't it drive down the birth rate and increase the value of women?

In fact, a clever Indian woman would be having daughters right now, because they should be at a real premium.

745. PelleNilsson - 4/22/2001 4:39:33 PM

The problem in India is that of dowry. Daughters are expensive.

746. CalGal - 4/22/2001 4:52:04 PM

I know. But as the guy points out at the end of the article, that will change quickly.

I'm not questioning the fact that it is social values at the root of the abortions--that's pretty much a given. I just think it's reassuring that these countries will have their preferences rise up and smack them in the face.

I just hope that the US isn't pressured to bail them out when it happens because for all my attempts to put a happy face on it, the practice sickens me.

747. PelleNilsson - 4/22/2001 4:55:45 PM

Right.

748. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 3:23:02 AM

I have advocated public executions in the past. I think that people of quality would be agahst at how the process dehumanizes and degrades the people involved. My major concern is not for the condemned, although they are worthy of consideration, for no matter how evil they are or their deeds are, they are people still. I am concerned about how feeding the primitive need for revenge corrodes the morality of the general populace and damages the legal system. It is as if we don't kill someone for every murder committed that the victim is somehow worth less, or the loss of their family and community is disrespected.

I would like to see some follow up reports on how much "closure" really occurs after an execution. Do they miss the victim less? Is the loss less tragic? Is the family healed and happy now justice is done? I have seen smaller scale losses in families, thorugh divorce, incarceration and accidental death, and would feel that I was a paracite if I promised these folk that venegence would make their life better. Doesn't seem to bother most politicians, prosecutors or police, though. Sure helps come election time, or annual budgeting.

Sadly, the biggest problem I see, is that most people would no recoil in horror at the carnage, and would be oblivious to the dehumanization. It would merely return us to the Colliseum. Allow it on TV, and they would eventually bring back the lions to tear the condemned apart, or perhaps gladiators.

749. ScottLoar - 4/23/2001 3:39:30 AM

Sadly, the biggest problem I see, is that most people would no recoil in horror at the carnage, and would be oblivious to the dehumanization. It would merely return us to the Colliseum. Allow it on TV, and they would eventually bring back the lions to tear the condemned apart, or perhaps gladiators.

Or, they would advance tv programs where persons are pitted one against another for high stakes in extreme conditions, further luring the audience with the increasingly real probability that injury or even death awaits the players.

750. jonesatlaw - 4/23/2001 7:41:57 AM

Bread and circuses seems to be as popular a prescription as ever.

751. labwabbit - 4/23/2001 12:10:26 PM

I am concerned about how feeding the primitive need for revenge corrodes the morality of the general populace and damages the legal system. It is as if we don't kill someone for every murder committed that the victim is somehow worth less, or the loss of their family and community is disrespected.

That is a very good point. Yet just another main point of contention when considering the dispensation of justice within the oft loose(varied) interpretations and standards in state justice systems. For example, what makes a cop more valuable than my child? What makes the murder of a prostitute less valuable than the mayor when considering death penalties?
This inherent, and "smoked-glass" interpretation of social values really sticks a hard, cold one in my craw. Even if I were to arrive as some determination that ALL murders, no matter the relevance of the social status of their victims, be executed for their crime not for the relative "value" of the victim. I could say at this point...ya...that's sounds fair, that sounds right...until I realize that the criminal system is not perfect. The criminal system can convict an innocent person. That innocent person, could be a friend, your child,...or you. Hence if an innocent is put to death, those who pronounced sentence*, become murderers. Should they be executed? Or are they too valuable within societal ranking? Can they be given higher status, thus allowing a murder or two in the process of justice?

*The judge? The Jury? The Governor? etc..etc...

752. jexster - 4/23/2001 12:31:30 PM

Am I the only person squicked out by the continual emphasis on the importance of "closure"?

No sadly I am another.

753. christipeters - 4/23/2001 12:39:53 PM

I am tired of all the "anniversaries". Why can't we let the tragedies of the past stay in the past. Is the news media really all that lazy? I realize it is cheaper to pull out old video of past stories and rehash old scripts than to go out and find out what is happening today, but really....

754. jexster - 4/25/2001 3:11:33 PM

Signs of the Ethnic Times...

Just back from a visit to the Chinatown Branch Library to pick up a copy of Espiritu Asian American Pan Ethnicity for my big research project.

Just outside the library on Stockton St. a massive Chinese funeral (rich MF!). As is common in New Orleans and used to be in Little Italy, the procession was led by a brass band. Here in SF the bands are Irish playing "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"

Quite a sight and probably worth a paragraph in the paper...perhaps in the intro after my opening quote from James Baldwin

The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted land

755. jexster - 4/27/2001 11:02:03 AM

An aide abruptly appeared with papers he held out to then-Governor Dubya. "It's the death warrants to sign, Governor. There are two executions scheduled for tonight."

Absent-mindedly, the Governor took the offered pen. But in mid-signature he lifted his hand. He looked hard at his aide.

"They're not white are they?"

The aide flashed a nervous smile. "Governor, would we do that to you?" he asked.

"It's not a woman either, is it? I'm not executing any more damn women. That last one—I was getting telegrams from as far away as Bolivia," Bush complained. "What the damn Bolivians or anyone else in Europe know about law and order in Texas I can't imagine."

The aide reassured him, "Both prisoners are male, Governor. One's black and one's Hispanic. Nothing out of the ordinary."

Pacified, Bush nodded. "That's okay then," he said. In an instant the aide retrieved the signed warrants and was gone.

756. vw - 4/28/2001 4:50:58 PM

In Rural Counties, the Squeeze of Poverty Can Be Stronger

Brief look at one woman in Update NY who is months away from using the last of her lifetime allotment of cash benefits from the State.

This is the kind of poverty I am familiar with … rural poor. I grew up in a NY upstate county that lost 65% of its local industries during the time I went from being a middle school student to graduating.

Most people are unable to relocate, do not have access to public transportation and may have to travel 60 miles or more to get to Public Assistance offices.

Do we need to structure the rural welfare reform differently than urban?

757. sakonige - 4/28/2001 5:07:40 PM

Living in a rural area where there is no employment is a lifestyle choice, like choosing to live on an Indian reservation where there is no employment. If there isn't enough community to support her where she lives, the woman portrayed in the NYT article should move to a region where she can either support herself or find adequate community services to support her.

758. sakonige - 4/28/2001 5:10:30 PM

In other words, I would answer that the needed change is one of attitude on the client side.

759. jexster - 4/28/2001 10:45:10 PM

BowlingAlone.com

760. jexster - 4/29/2001 2:59:10 PM

Preachers, priests and politicians often talk about "traditional family values" as though they were handed down by George Washington and God himself.

Bob Bellah, a sociologist, and Bill Countryman, a scripture scholar, suggest that we look a little closer at our ideas about families, and what the Bible really says about them.

Yesterday, they shared the podium at an Episcopal seminary in Berkeley for the day-long forum, "Whose Family? Whose Values?"

More

761. jexster - 4/29/2001 3:08:40 PM

Countryman warned the audience at yesterday's forum to "be suspicious when anyone tells you there is one vision of family values in the Bible.

"It is actually easier to talk about anti-family biblical values."

762. Cellar Door - 4/29/2001 9:22:53 PM

"Scout's Honor."

763. CalGal - 4/29/2001 9:27:07 PM

vw,

I read that article, and the one thing I was struck by more than anything was how completely unprepared that woman was for life of any sort. Again, I wonder why we aren't doing more to discourage women from having children.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the county was doing all the things I would have liked to see--including refurbishing wrecks and getting these women transportation. What did you think was the next step?

764. CalGal - 4/29/2001 9:27:55 PM

. Again, I wonder why we aren't doing more to discourage women from having children.

Add a "poor" before women, just to make sure I annoy someone.

765. vw - 4/30/2001 7:45:57 AM

If there isn't enough community to support her where she lives, the woman portrayed in the NYT article should move to a region where she can either support herself or find adequate community services to support her

I think we can assume that someone without the cash to get herself to her MacJob probably does not have the amount of income needed to relocate a family.

Sounds good to say “go where the services are” but many urban areas actively discourage “move-ins” by having 3 or 6-month residency periods before allowing access to welfare/assistance services.

766. Shannon - 4/30/2001 8:19:51 AM

I didn't know that about the residency periods. I knew states often had such requirements, which I can see more reason for. It seems to me that it's better in the long run to assist with relocation rather than discourage it.

767. bubbaette - 4/30/2001 8:45:35 AM

Some areas of Virginia (the coalfields, specifically) have unemployment rates near 20% while the rest of the state is at 3% or lower. Jobs are drying up in these areas and the poor transportation, education system and other infrastructure makes it difficult to lure new industry. I've often felt that it makes sense to pay the money to train and relocate these people to one of the more prosperous areas of the state where the job market is tight.

Of course, that would cause other problems. As those of working age relocated to where jobs are more plentiful, the retired and the disabled would be left with little support system. As those of working age leave, the tax base and property values (already small) would shrivle. The costs of relocation are significant, particularly in the D.C. area. But the economy isn't going to get any better in the rural and mountainous areas and is only going to get worse, so why not give these people the hand-up they need to escape?

768. CalGal - 4/30/2001 11:51:33 AM

That assumes they'll be able to use the handup, which is by no means a given. The ones that are employable have left already.

As those of working age leave, the tax base and property values (already small) would shrivle.

Yes, and did you also read the NY Times article, Whites are Minority in 100 Largest Cities

Sounds very melting pot, until you realize that this, too, means that the tax base of the major cities is disappearing as the whites (and prospering minorities) leave the cities.

Traditionally, cities offer fairly generous social services, but I wonder how long that will last as their income continues to drop?

As we continue down the path of segregating the poor by zip code, we are separating populations: those with the will to pay (cities and rural areas) from those with the ability to pay (suburbs).

At the same time, it is becoming more and more obvious that a good number of the indigent will never be able to participate economically to the extent that they'll make more than they cost to support.

It seems pretty obvious that we will need massive investments to catch the kids of these people to do the best we can to develop them into adults who can participate in some way.

But we will never do that, or want to do that, as long as the reproduction rate of the poor is unchecked.

Sounds ugly, but I keep coming back to this: reducing the birth rate of the welfare population and the indigent is critical to addressing this problem.

769. bubbaette - 4/30/2001 1:30:04 PM

That assumes they'll be able to use the handup, which is by no means a given. The ones that are employable have left already.

Not so very long ago, there were high-paying jobs in the Va. coalfields. But as the coal played-out and the mines went to mechanized long-wall mining, those jobs are much fewer in number. Nothing has come to take their place.

It's not an easy thing to relocate from an area in which a 3 bdrm house might rent for $450/month to an area in which a 3bdrm apt costs $1200/month, a month's deposit and various utility deposits. But census figures are showing a regular exodus --mostly of the young.

As for white flight from the cities, I think that at least here in the south that is entirely traceable to Brown v. Board. As soon as the ruling started to be enforced is when you started seeing families with children making the move outside of the city limits. Then, with a round of annexations, the cities tried to keep up with the moving population until a moratorium was placed on annexation.

770. Fielding - 4/30/2001 1:30:28 PM

Cal:

This article really just demonstrates how arbitrary city boundaries can be.

Where are the whites moving? To the suburbs. Where are the suburbs? Right outside (or even inside) the city.

Rich white people still say they live in New York City, even if they technically live in Great Neck, Scarsdale or Short Hills. The same is true for San Francisco and Marin County, or any other city.

If we defined city by metropolitan area, rather than the antiquated city borderlines, the story would be very different.

What the article is really saying is that the richest neighborhoods are outside city limits.

771. CalGal - 4/30/2001 1:38:34 PM

Fielding,

If we defined city by metropolitan area, rather than the antiquated city borderlines, the story would be very different.

Well, those "antiquated city borderlines" are what taxes are paid on, so they're not all that antiquated and it's still the unattractive story, if you consider tax basis the story in question.

The same is true for San Francisco and Marin County, or any other city.


I don't know about "any other city", but no one in any Bay Area suburb says they live in the City. Of course, San Francisco is one of the cities that is actually quite well-off, I imagine. They kick out their poor, rather than their wealthy.

The issue of suburbans benefiting from city offerings (museums, theater, opera, employment) without paying for it is a real one and one that needs to be addressed. But it will never be addressed to the extent that suburbs will pay for a city's welfare population. Certainly not a generous one.

772. Fielding - 4/30/2001 1:47:10 PM

Cal:

"Well, those "antiquated city borderlines" are what taxes are paid on, so they're not all that antiquated and it's still the unattractive story, if you consider tax basis the story in question."

They are antiquated in structure, if not antiquated in use. I'm sure that we both agree that many, if not most, political divisions in this country are grossly out of date.


"I don't know about "any other city", but no one in any Bay Area suburb says they live in the City."

When I meet someone from Marin on the East Coast, the invariably start out by saying that they are from San Francisco, only mentioning "Marin" after further questioning. It could be that I have met an unrepresentative sampling.


"The issue of suburbans benefiting from city offerings (museums, theater, opera, employment) without paying for it is a real one and one that needs to be addressed. But it will never be addressed to the extent that suburbs will pay for a city's welfare population. Certainly not a generous one."

That doesn't mean that status quo should continue.

773. Cellar Door - 4/30/2001 1:48:29 PM

"Dr." Laura is a lying slut.

774. Fielding - 4/30/2001 1:49:15 PM

Cellar:

And your point is . . . ?

775. Cellar Door - 4/30/2001 1:50:46 PM

True, it's like saying that the sun will rise tomorrow. But she's got a radio show.

And she's still breathing.

776. CalGal - 4/30/2001 1:59:48 PM

When I meet someone from Marin on the East Coast, the invariably start out by saying that they are from San Francisco, only mentioning "Marin" after further questioning.

Sure, but that's to be polite to outlanders, since most of them don't know any of the suburbs outside the City. It happens elsewhere as well. That has nothing to do with how they identify themselves. No one in Marin County thinks of themselves as an SF resident, which is the issue.

I'm sure that we both agree that many, if not most, political divisions in this country are grossly out of date.


I'm not sure why you bring in politics.

I don't see why you think the divisions are grossly out of date. Suburbs and city living are very different and always have been. It is quite possible to argue that suburban development was a negative, but not that it is outdated.

Also, I suspect that if cities made it too expensive for the suburbans to visit, they'd just develop their own amenities. So it's arguable that what the cities offer is convenience--making it possible for the suburbs to avoid building their own. This is certainly what happened as far as employment--it used to be unheard of for suburbs to have corporate facilities, now it is completely unremarkable.

That doesn't mean that status quo should continue.


"Should" is irrelevant. What matters is what the taxpayers will pay.

Anyone who really wants to help the poor should focus on their birthrate--particularly the birthrate of people who can't afford to support themselves at all.

777. Fielding - 4/30/2001 3:07:55 PM

Cal:

"Should" is irrelevant."

Anyone who really wants to help the poor should . . . "

This is why you're my hero.

778. CalGal - 4/30/2001 3:46:08 PM

Fielding,

I'm astonished to realize that I'm your hero. It does explain your rather unseemly attention, though.

I don't really have to explain the difference to you, do I? It's pretty obvious. I have faith you can figure out when "should" is irrelevant and when it isn't.

779. sakonige - 4/30/2001 11:44:16 PM

Message # 765

I'll bet she will figure out how to move to a city as soon as the welfare checks stop arriving at her rural address. The cities wouldn't be filling up with poor people if it was difficult to move into them.

780. CalGal - 4/30/2001 11:47:14 PM

That's probably true. I believe the reason that waiting periods began is because states with generous welfare programs discovered that recipients were moving to their state to take advantage of them.

781. sakonige - 4/30/2001 11:57:17 PM

Personally, I'm delighted to see fast-breeding Mestizos becoming the majority population. Viva los Indios. Eventually, they'll take over the suburbs, too.

782. HollyW - 5/1/2001 12:29:51 AM

(This is the best I can do with links, people.)

I read this article on Gypsies a while ago, and was left with the feeling: why continue a culture that offers such limited choices to it's people, that perpetuates poverty? Why get upset if it is vanishing? One-third of Gypsy children in Europe don't attend school regularly. Work ethics lie on some gene that is recessive, and many Gypsies live off of assistance. (Quote: "My father was very strict--he wanted all of us to work--which is very unusual for us Gypsies.") There was a picture of Gypsy children dressing themselves up as disabled beggars so they could spare-change more effectively.

Is this a viable lifestyle? (The blurb I linked to is rather sedate, as NG tends to be.)

783. HollyW - 5/1/2001 12:31:00 AM

Whoops, my link didn't show up. Damn.

Okay, never mind. It's the April issue, if anyone is interested.

784. HollyW - 5/1/2001 12:33:16 AM

One more try.

785. HollyW - 5/1/2001 12:33:42 AM

I give up.

786. CalGal - 5/1/2001 12:40:49 AM

Holly,

National Geographic piece on Gypsies

Look below the posting window and see HTML hints for help. To practice, try HTML Scratchpad, a thread that isn't on the main page anymore but is still a place to doodle and play. If you need help there, just post a plea in the Cafe or N&Q.

787. HollyW - 5/1/2001 1:00:05 AM

Thanks, CG. For now, though, I'll be going to bed.

788. joezan - 5/1/2001 8:41:27 PM

789. HollyW - 5/1/2001 11:49:30 PM

I don't understand the need for this. Is it that arranging to have a child adopted is too fraught with pitfalls? Is there a problem that mothers who don't want their children are being forced to keep them anyway? That is a scary thought.

790. joezan - 5/1/2001 11:54:58 PM

Holly:

Lotta work and responsibility, giving up a child for adoption. This is, like, no-fault child surrender.

Hopefully, it will put a dent in the number of newborns found in trash cans, which seems to be a weekly event in Detroit.

791. CalGal - 5/2/2001 12:04:42 AM

What amuses me (in a sour way) is that the mother dumped her kid, but one of the arguments that "tests" the law is that she wasn't notified that she could change her mind about dumping her kid and wasn't given a pamphlet.

Now, I could see that being a problem if the mother wanted to keep her kid. But she dumps her kid and the judge is saying, "We can't make this illegal because she wasn't duly informed of her rights that make this legal?"

792. HollyW - 5/2/2001 12:10:54 AM

Yes, it's like we have to say to her, "You sure, now? Are you absolutely sure? Positive sure, no doubt in your mind? Look, why don't you just think it over a bit more..."

793. joezan - 5/2/2001 12:14:32 AM

Yeah - that's what I meant by an idea whose time has not come.

But hey - it's Detroit.

794. vw - 5/2/2001 10:24:13 AM

A pamphlet? Good lord. Do we then also have to ascertain whether or not she read it? And comprehended?

rhetorical question: How can the adoption process move forward when there is no mention of the birth father except for the fact that nobody know who he is?

795. CalGal - 5/2/2001 10:51:54 AM

Because it must move forward. Otherwise, how could we have a complete mess two years from now when the birth father learns of the child and demands custody?

796. vw - 5/2/2001 11:49:14 AM

(snerk)

Guess so, we wouldn't want 20/20 or Dateline to suffer a shortage of "screaming child wrenched out of arms of loving family to be handed over to white trash bio-dad and his mom" footage.

797. CalGal - 5/2/2001 12:10:25 PM

Precisely. An investment in the media infrastructure masquerading as social policy.

798. vw - 5/2/2001 4:53:50 PM

Speaking of media .... did anyone else see Frontline last night? I only saw half of The Merchants of Cool.

Thought what I saw was excellent.

799. jexster - 5/6/2001 10:01:02 PM

My research into Asian Voting Behavior has unearthed a pearl, actually a "Yellow Pearl" the title of a column William Wong that until recently appeared regularly in Asian Week.

This concerning Prop 187 and the intra-Asian conflicts over affirmative action ....

Sonny Bono and The Great American Meritocracy Myth

800. vw - 5/7/2001 8:24:48 PM

A recent study by researchers at Oregon State University has found a new link in the dynamic to Child Abuse. They suggest that the way parents view their children is a critical factor in the potential risk of child abuse, and could even be more important than whether the parents are abusive to each other.

Sounds like common sense, but this is not the current view of the dynamics involved in child abuse. There has been tremendous focus on the theory that abusive behavior is mostly a learned or behavioral dysfunction ... if daddy hits mommy or mommy hits you, you learn to hit your family. From the study report:

The findings suggest that the link between domestic violence and child abuse is not just a behavioral pattern, McGuigan said, but also a cognitive one. He says if you can change the thinking, you change the behavior.

801. CalGal - 5/7/2001 9:19:17 PM

The researchers discovered that parents who felt their child was difficult or deserved punishment were more likely to abuse their children. Other negative views of the child included unrealistic expectations by parents, and a perceived lack of bonding between parent and child.

That seems so totally backwards. Lack of bonding would account for negative views and a higher likelihood to abuse. Why on earth are they counting it as a symptom, as opposed to a cause?

"If you begin with the fact that most mothers love their babies, you have a starting point for improving their understanding of child development,"

I don't think that's a realistic place to begin, though. Unless they are defining "child abuse" rather broadly.

Do they ever run studies on abusers in high income familes? It seems to me the results would be "purer".

802. vw - 5/7/2001 9:39:20 PM

Lack of bonding would account for negative views and a higher likelihood to abuse.

I think the weasel in the quote you mentioned was the use of the word perceived lack of bonding. I made the assumption that they were referring to mothers who think something “magical” called bonding happens and that’s all it takes to keep you from wanting to shake an infant that has been screaming for 6 hours.

Do they ever run studies on abusers in high income familes? It seems to me the results would be "purer".

Not sure. I’m still hunting around the OSU web site to find reference to the research in hopes of finding harder info.

I do have a hard time envisioning a lot of $75,000 and above income folks spilling their guts about smacking their kids to a college grad student doing research. Could just be my bias showing though (grin).

803. CalGal - 5/7/2001 9:42:34 PM

I do have a hard time envisioning a lot of $75,000 and above income folks spilling their guts about smacking their kids to a college grad student doing research.

Totally agree, and I'm sure that's why there aren't many. But maybe it could be made a condition of probation or something.

Oh, do you think they meant the mother perceived a lack of bonding between her and the child? Okay. That still doesn't impress me much, but it makes a bit more sense.

804. vw - 5/7/2001 9:46:35 PM

Yeah, that's what I thought they meant... that one source of negative thinking could start from a belief that bonding did not occur or did not occur effectively which given enough reinforcement through repetitious thought patterns could develop into a kind of ‘I can’t really love, mother or nurture this child because we didn’t bond” loop.

805. CalGal - 5/7/2001 9:57:30 PM

That whole report smelled very much like wishful thinking, with a hefty dose of condescension. "These people just need to be taught not to hit their kids!"

806. vw - 5/7/2001 10:00:41 PM

Oh Cal, BTW, I wanted to point you at this article. It resurrects the ghost of the old TT “Effects of Divorce on Children” debate.

I’ve only had a chance to glance at the abstract and need to sit down and really read through it.

807. vw - 5/7/2001 10:02:37 PM

"These people just need to be taught not to hit their kids!"

(grin) Well, yeah, but a lot of cognitive therapy sounds like that though, yet it can be very powerful.

808. CalGal - 5/7/2001 10:16:18 PM

No, I believe in cognitive therapy. I'm just not completely convinced that they don't have a political opinion overlaying their answers.

809. ElliottRW - 5/7/2001 10:23:05 PM

vw -- Thanks for the link. While I appreciate CalGal's healthy skepticism, the story was an eye-opener for me.

810. CalGal - 5/7/2001 10:53:37 PM

Elliot,

I'm not all that skeptical about their findings. I thought they were fairly unremarkable. I was skeptical about their "cure". I certainly don't think it will do any harm to give these women more information about baby bonding.

I just think so many of them should never have kids in the first place, and it bothers me that the continual "fix" requires more money, time, and resources for a group (low income women) that does nothing but have more and more kids. We'll never be able to get to, or save, them all.

And that's well beyond the scope of the study, obviously.

VW, thanks for that divorce link. So far it's great reading.

811. vw - 5/9/2001 1:52:27 PM

Oh my, John “I’m Gay. No I’m Not. Yes I Am” Paulk is at it again. And he’s got a Columbia University psychiatry professor with him this time.

812. CalGal - 5/9/2001 1:55:21 PM

I meant to link that in and forgot. This was one of the guys who originally fought to get homosexuality taken off the list of disorders, right? And it was a weak study, from what I gather?

813. Ronski - 5/9/2001 1:57:38 PM

More on the Latest Snake Oil

814. CalGal - 5/9/2001 2:06:48 PM

He conducted 45-minute telephone interviews with 200 people, 143 of them men, who claimed they had changed their orientation from gay to heterosexual. The average age of those interviewed was 43.

They answered about 60 questions about their sexual feelings and behavior before and after their efforts to change. Those efforts had begun about 14 years before the interviews for the men and 12 years for the women.



Well, that ought to do it! Clearly he researched it thoroughly.

815. vw - 5/9/2001 2:07:47 PM

Yeah Spitzer is a real gem. And yeah the study is seriously flawed. Most of his sample were names provided by organizations like Focus on the Family. And then there’s this

A year ago, the Human Rights Campaign urged Spitzer in a letter to use objective physical measures to determine if his subjects were still attracted to same-sex partners. He declined...

Yeah, there’s nothing worse than objective data messing up your opinion is there?


816. vw - 5/9/2001 2:09:34 PM

I like this one too! A study that doesn't result in results!



Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University who led the study, said he cannot estimate what percentage of highly motivated gay people can change their sexual orientation.

817. vw - 5/9/2001 2:09:49 PM

oops

818. CalGal - 5/9/2001 2:10:05 PM

What caused this change? Has he found God recently?

819. vw - 5/9/2001 2:10:28 PM

One more toy

820. Ronski - 5/9/2001 2:10:43 PM

The fact remains that in all the medical literature on the subject, there is no peer-reviewed (analyzed by other established researchers), longitudinal (studied over a sufficient length of time) paper in a respected medical journal showing that a clear homosexual orientation has been changed to a heterosexual orientation, only reports of people abstaining or changing behavior. And in the latter cases, those behavioral changes seem not to last for most people. When asked if they can prove that their changes are permament, the usual response from the religious groups who claim "cures" is that they have far more important things to do than to keep track of their study subjects lives several years into the future. I think human sexuality is sufficiently complex that there may indeed be some people who have lived lives as homosexuals and then functioned for the rest of their lives as heterosexuals, but not many. The traffic is overwhelmingly in the other direction.

All this said, I couldn't care less whether someone unhappy about being gay tries to change his or her life. What I object to is false hope and using these exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims as political weapons.

821. vw - 5/9/2001 2:14:01 PM

Spitzer has always been personally anti-gay that I know of. He’s publicly spoken against Gay marriage, gay adoption and gays in the military in the last couple of years. I’m pretty sure I saw him floating around this year in DC during the big Anti-Abortion Klan rally in front of the reflecting pool

822. CalGal - 5/9/2001 2:24:56 PM

VW,

But he originally spearheaded the effort to get the APA to drop it as a mental disorder, I thought. One would assume he felt differently--but maybe not.

823. vw - 5/9/2001 2:34:02 PM

Yes, but remember they pulled up short of calling homosexuality "normal" and they inserted a new psychiatric disorder called "sexual orientation disturbance" that refers to homosexuals who want need to adjust or change their orientation. (what ever that means?)

I'm hunting around now to see what happened between 1973 and now to explain it.

824. vw - 5/9/2001 2:41:12 PM

Okay, I am confused now. Look at this guy's bio. Why the hell is he putting his name on something as shoddy as this recent study seems to be?

I thought we were confusing to separate people but apparently we are not.

825. CalGal - 5/9/2001 3:34:18 PM

Well, that's what I meant earlier. He is well-regarded, but the study seems very shabby.

826. Ronski - 5/9/2001 3:40:13 PM

It seems hardly a study at all. He didn't study his subjects, just interviewed them. It resembles a tract full of religious testifyin'. He takes whatever they say on face value. Its kind of like a doctor reporting that apricot pits cure cancer after interviewing people who claimed they were cured using apricot pits and who were referred to the doctor by groups supporting the use of apricot pits as a treatment for malignancies. Not exactly a rigorous application of the scientific method.

827. CalGal - 5/9/2001 3:41:16 PM

Exactly. That's what confuses me, given the guy's reputation. Why would he sign on for such a conclusion?

828. Ronski - 5/9/2001 3:56:25 PM

Do you know any psychiatrists? The more of them you know, the easier it is to answer questions like that.

(In fairness, there are many very good ones. But the field is one of the more inexact of the sciences. Very heavy on speculation, from its inception.)

829. JJBiener - 5/9/2001 5:53:17 PM

I have trouble with anyone claiming they have been "cured" of homosexuality. I could never be cured of heterosexuality, so I don't see how it could work.

830. msgreer - 5/10/2001 9:23:38 AM

I have trouble listening to Jerry Fawell stating all the homosexuals he has "cured" did so through the Bible. He states he has groups down in Lynchburg, Va. full of gay men wanting, yearning for the heterosexual life. He offers no studies, just sites the Bible. And I agree with Ronski, re psychiatrists. It is an inexact science. And it's hit and miss. No well respected psychiatrist will tell you they have cured anyone. When it comes to psychiatric issues the client is the only one that can "cure" or help themselves. Having said that many benefit from medication combined with talk therapy. Today's psychiatrists dish out medication. That's about it. There is no more 5 day a week/50 minute sessions with psychiatrists.My sister is a psychiatrist and all she does all day is try to find the right medication for her clients. I would like to add I also agree with Ronski when she said SSRI are not for bi-polar disease. Ronski

What do you hear about Remeron? I was involved in a study of bi-polar disease. One woman, a true bi-polar, has gotten relief with Remeron, Trazodone, meditation and yoga.

831. CalGal - 5/10/2001 10:00:59 AM

That can go to health policies, surely? And Ronski is a he.

There hasn't yet been any TV coverage of this study, or anything beyond the original reports. I wonder when it will hit the pundit circuit?

Bush has declared a new drug czar. Hoo-ya.

832. JJBiener - 5/10/2001 10:44:24 AM

CalGal - Don't be such a bitch.

833. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 11:10:08 AM

I have trouble with anyone claiming they have been "cured" of homosexuality. I could never be cured of heterosexuality, so I don't see how it could work.

Precisely, J.J.

What's interesting about this whole deal is that the announcement of of this "study" and serious criticism of its methods arrived simultaneously.
The "second-day story" should be how the thing was funded.

And oh what a tangled we we weave. . .

834. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 11:20:11 AM

About two years ago Gilbert Adair, the film critic and novelist (Love and Death on Long Island, which was made into a highly successful film) announced that he had become heterosexual. Very grandly. Big trumpet flourish. And much pooh-poohing of all his -- now former -- gay friends (myself included bien sur as he expected we were poised to launch the first pooh-pooh.

What was going on? Simple. Dat 'Ol Debbil Mid-Life Crisis. For years Gilbert, being reasonably attractive, very debonair, and exceedingly erudite, was able to score with the young, nubile undergraduates that caught his fancy. Now entering his 50's the bloom was off the rose. But for all those Grace's longing to bag Gilbert as their Will he was now ripe for the pickin'

And lo, Gilbert had sex with a woman for the first time in his life.

Well how nice for him. But rather than simply say "I guess I've been bisexual all along," or "Well this doesn't mean I'm no longer attracted to men -- this thing just happenend and I don't know or care why," he launched a whole campaign.

Haven't heard from Gilbert for some time now. . .

835. RosettaStone - 5/10/2001 11:20:24 AM

I love the line of being, or not being, "highly motivated" to be cured of your homosexuality

Classic.

836. Ronski - 5/10/2001 11:36:44 AM

A note on bisexuality. There does not appear to be recorded cases of someone being equally attracted to both men and women. The continuum of sexuality seems to go like this: exclusively homosexual, predominantly homosexual, predominantly heterosexual, exclusively heterosexual. Absolute bisexuality seems to get skipped. What we're talking about here, it should also be noted, is orientation, not behavior. Orientation involves such things as sexual fantasies, ideation, etc. Behavior per se does not necessarily conform with orientation, epsecially not in the short run. Another interesting factor to be considered is the strength of one's sex drive. Gay people who don't much like sex in the first place (I hear there are such people) might more easily exist in a heterosexual arrangement than a gay person with a normal amount of lustiness.

837. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 11:46:54 AM

My TT pal Joe Beason just wrote --

I think my mother would snap if I became straight. "First you want to be a priest, then you're an atheist. Then you go to school for year after year after year, but never finish the PhD. Then it's back to Chicago just after I move away. And now you're not gay. What the hell is the matter with you? Here, have some pound cake."

838. glendajean - 5/10/2001 11:54:09 AM

Cellar -- ha, ha.

Ronski -- I have discounted bisexuality in men only because that's what everybody always said to me when they were coming out. It was a stage to help them cope. "Oh, I'm bisexual." God forbid, that they were gay. Then they figured out that they were gay. And it wasn't so bad.

But I am sure there must be men who are truly bisexual. I think Cellar talked about movie stars who probably are.

839. CalGal - 5/10/2001 12:00:57 PM

Cellar,

The Times article I read mentioned how it was funded--I think it was his department at school. Not like it was all that expensive. Two hundred phone calls and write-up time.

840. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 12:03:50 PM

Actually I've known several truly bisexual men. But they have nothing to do with the semi-closeted gays who claim "but I'm really bisexual."

David Alper, who's a major Hollywood deal-maker/lawyer (he was with New Line until recently) is bisexual. He's been married twice. He had affairs with men before his marriages, and none since. Yet he doesn't pretend his attraction for men is something he "overcame" and that "now I'm heterosexual." In other words he has a (drumroll please) sexual preferencefor women. The same can be said of Gerard Malanga of Warhol Silver Factory fame. Gerard got it on with men and women all the time. But in recent years his sexual preference for women took over. This doesn't mean, however, that he regards his gay liasons as something he "overcame."

By contrast my TT pal Steven Bradford was heterosexual in his you, but now as middle-age beckons has become -- Steven Bradford.

If you show up at Burning Man next year, Francis, Steven will be everso happy to paint your body blue and capture you with his videocam doing all sorts of delightful things.

841. ScottLoar - 5/10/2001 12:03:58 PM

Message # 836 conforms to experience and common sense.

842. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 12:05:19 PM

Ah but who funded that department CG?

Thereby hangs a tale.

843. ScottLoar - 5/10/2001 12:06:28 PM

Message # 840 conforms to the definition of libertine which is a state of activity falling in and out of favour with the times.

844. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 12:09:51 PM

You mean the times made them do it, Scott?

My what a sheltered life you lead!

845. CalGal - 5/10/2001 12:10:04 PM

It was Columbia University, Cellar. I don't see it being funded by Jerry or Ralph. But I can't find where I read the part about funding, so maybe I missed it.

Most of his subjects were sent to him by pro-"cure" groups. I can't figure out how this can be acceptable as a study.

846. Ronski - 5/10/2001 12:12:52 PM

glenda, Cellar,

Perhaps there are truly bisexual men, though I imagine they would be very rare. But I don't know of any medical or scientific literature that records any. Until there are some studies along those lines (and I admit I'm relying on information from medical folks that is not very recent), I will not believe it. I, too, have seen men engage in homosexualtiy and heterosexualtiy in equal amounts, but I have always felt they had very strong feelings towards one sex or the other, and not equally strong feelings.

847. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 12:15:43 PM

From what I understand there are ways that groups can funnel funding. But you're right that the main point about Spitzer's "study" is that its methods are completely unacceptable and unscientific.

And that fact made the first graph of every story that's been written about it.

It would on the other hand be more than reasonable -- and extremely welcome -- to study bisexuality. From my experience there's an enormous amount of variance. Perhaps there's some level of commonality, but so far we've only got anecdotal evidence (such as what I've been posting) to go on.

848. janjon - 5/10/2001 12:30:59 PM

One of the most appalling things about that so-called study is the tremendous (and, of course, highly superficial) press it received. Which, of course, further cements the certainty of being correct in those who want to believe that homosexuality is mostly if not solely a matter of choice.

849. Ronski - 5/10/2001 12:34:35 PM

A caller to Joan Rivers last night said, if I heard him right, that Spitzer was on radio earlier in the day acknowledging that he had become a Born Again Christian and that he said "homosexuals have low morals." Can anyone corroborate this about the guy?

850. Cellar Door - 5/10/2001 12:34:45 PM

But the press always goes apeshit over some "new study" or other -- whatever the subject.

What's interesting here is that the fact that it's flawed was delivered simultaneously with the announcement.

851. Ronski - 5/10/2001 12:36:51 PM

janjon,

Still, as Cellar points out, I think the press did a fair job of debunking the stuff in their own coverage. A far cry from the day when the media automatically referred to pedophiles as "homosexuals" or, like the Times in the 50s, called gays "perverts" on its front page.

852. janjon - 5/10/2001 12:43:23 PM

Yes, the press I've read did do a nice job of debunking. But, I happened for other reasons to be watching a lot of the nightly local "news" programs on tv at the time, and there was precious little perspective, let along debunking, going on. Just the "facts", ma'am.

853. CalGal - 5/10/2001 5:43:33 PM

A review of Ehrenreich's book "Nickels and Dimes" in Salon and an NPR survey on America's attitudes towards poverty.

The article is insightful; I am not sure that Ehrenreich's book will do as well.

What's far more effective -- and what Ehrenreich discovers to her chagrin -- is the way the tests [employment personality tests] capitalize on unskilled laborers' craving for a sense of achievement. When, trying to persuade a sick and injured co-worker to take the rest of the day off, Ehrenreich says of their boss that "he'll take anyone who can manage to show up sober at 7:30 in the morning," the woman protests: "Not everyone can get this job. You have to pass the test." Ehrenreich explodes: "The test is BULLSHIT! ANYONE can pass that test," thereby bruising the woman's fragile pride and forever alienating her.

Having quit her housecleaning job and revealed her writing project to her fellow maids, she asks them how they feel about the owners of the posh houses they clean. One woman will admit to no more than indifference and a numb craving for "a day off now and then," while another states, "It motivates me and I don't feel the slightest resentment because, you know, it's my goal to get to where they are." Ehrenreich's efforts to stir up pro-union sentiment at Wal-Mart meets with better, but still pretty spotty, success.
...

This tension intermittently ripples through "Nickel and Dimed." Ehrenreich's image of the working poor as, in fact, simply victims of an unjust social order clashes with their need to believe that they have some say in their own fates -- and to hold the people in their lives morally accountable.

854. CalGal - 5/10/2001 5:45:33 PM

The survey is extremely interesting, particularly in terms of what it reveals about the poor. It seems that politics and race are far better predictors than income when it comes to attitudes towards the poor.

855. JudithAtHome - 5/10/2001 6:02:43 PM

This was excerpted last year in Harpers and looked really good...

857. vw - 5/11/2001 12:36:15 PM

Re: Spitzer

He seems to have some kind of connection with the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). He's quoted in a NARTH article as thanking NARTH for thier continued support.

858. Ronski - 5/11/2001 4:00:23 PM

Update from UC's Greg Herek on attempts to change orientation, including Spitzer

859. vw - 5/12/2001 10:03:42 AM

In Honor of Mother's Day:

School bans Mother's Day

Does it ‘Pay’ to be a Full-Time Mom?

AK Supreme Court rules fetus a 'person'

Happy day all you mothers!

860. CalGal - 5/12/2001 10:18:18 AM

Ha! The poll in the ABC News story is How Much Should Moms Be Paid?

The winner? "Nothing". It's not scientific, but what a hoot.

And of course, notice that the only "mothers" are those who don't work. At no point do they mention this, though.

861. jonesatlaw - 5/13/2001 12:57:30 AM

And of course, notice that the only "mothers" are those who don't work. At no point do they mention this, though.

Cal, I hate to respond to a post with a bumper sticker, but
EVERY MOTHER IS A WORKING MOTHER!

862. CalGal - 5/13/2001 3:32:35 AM

Jones,

No offense to you personally, but blah, blah blah to that one. I used to be polite about it, but lately it's too much trouble to condescend to the poor dears.

It's bullshit to say that taking care of your own kid is "work", and sure as hell it's true that it's no more work for a mother than a father. You really want to sit there and tell me that a chick on welfare is "working"?

A stay at home mother does nothing that a mother with a real job doesn't do as well, except provide 8-9 hours of daycare. Whoop-de doo. I'd say pay that chick $5/hour, but given she's getting free board and rent I'd say she's getting far more in recompense than she's giving.

To pretend that stay at home moms "work" is a joke. It's a luxury their husbands allow them (unless it's the government footing her bills), and in almost all cases it's a luxury they can't really afford. Most women staying at home with their kids are neglecting their responsibilities and putting their kids' financial security at risk.

I don't call that "work". But if you feel strongly about it, then feel free to substitute "those who aren't employed".

863. msgreer - 5/13/2001 5:09:33 AM

jones

Nice to see you. I can not begin to answer CG reaction to what you said. I know of no mother who stays at home taking care of her child that is not a working mother. To think otherwise, well, jones, it shows how some mothers view raising their child. Although being able to stay home with my daughter was a luxury for me, it was very clear to my daughter's father before I got pregnant I had every intention of raising my child at home. Anyone who does not understand it is work, well, jones, they must not understand the importance of one of the child's caregivers being there throughout their childs most important developmental years. I once told a friend if I die tomorrow and there is a funeral, don't talk about what I did as a nurse advocate, tell people I was the best mother that ever lived.

I know my mother raised five girls and she was there for all of us. There is nothing more important a parent can do in my opinion. Nothing in the world. So Happy Mother's Day fellow Motie mothers. I know in todays world day care is required when both parents have to work and I understand that.
Kids grow up fast enough. The bonding that occurs between the child and caregiver, whether it be the mother or father, can not be measured in dollars and cents. There is not enough money to pay the mother or father who stays home. I don't care what
some magazine has to say about it. It might sound silly to some but bringing up a child is the most important thing any parent can do in my opinion. Personally, I do not know how a parent can turn their kid over to daycare. Having said that, I know it is a reality in today's world. I wouldn't trade one day of mothering my daughter for any amount of money.

I am so tired right now I can hardly keep my eyes open..but I am with my daughter now and she needs me. And the special bond we have together has gotten her through many
difficult times.

And jones, I hope all is well with you.

864. msgreer - 5/13/2001 5:17:23 AM

jones

I know many will disagree with my point of view and I did not post my feelings to argue. I just wrote my own feelings about raising a child.

865. JudithAtHome - 5/13/2001 11:05:53 AM

Most women staying at home with their kids are neglecting their responsibilities and putting their kids' financial security at risk.

I know your feelings on this already, Cal, and am not looking to argue that some mothers may be putting their kids' financial security at risk but just what "responsibilities" are they neglecting by staying at home? A woman who gives birth to a child is primarily responsible to that childs needs...are you saying she is neglecting her debt to society or something?

866. CalGal - 5/13/2001 11:28:48 AM

just what "responsibilities" are they neglecting by staying at home?

Her responsibility to the child. A "child's needs" includes financial security. For the past 30 years, both parents are equally responsible for their child. A woman who can't provide for her child is neglecting that responsibility--and marrying is an insufficient provision.

I should point out that there are some women who are fully capable of providing for their kids and just take off for a few years because it's fun. Likewise, there are plenty of women who work part-time or the McJobs for "supplemental income" or the more absurd "pin money" whose kids are far more at risk than a professional woman who has decided to kick back for a while. So it's not really sahm vs. working mom, but whether or not the mother can provide financially for her child, no matter what happens. I'd say a good percentage of working moms still can't provide for the children they've brought into the world.

867. LadyChaos - 5/13/2001 11:42:38 AM

Paul Krugman makes an excellent argument in favor of private roads, today, though he probably doesn't realize it.

Maybe he's really a Libertarian at heart.

868. Slackjaw - 5/13/2001 5:30:03 PM

Of course he recognizes the implications for private provision, those being rather obvious. Why would you be so presumptuous as to say he probably doesn't?

He also probably recognized the possibility of rent extraction by monopolists supplying complementary goods and concluded that it's not so obvious it's a good argument in favor of (unregulated) private roads.

869. Slackjaw - 5/13/2001 5:32:32 PM

In fact if I remember right it's formally the same argument he used against a breakup of microsoft.

870. christipeters - 5/14/2001 10:38:39 AM

"So it's not really sahm vs. working mom, but whether or not the mother can provide financially for her child, no matter what happens."

(quibble quibble) Actually it is possible (for a bare minority) to provide financially for your children, no matter what happens, and still be a SAH parent. Although I do, again, conceed your point that it IS irresponsible to make the decision that one parent stay home with the kids without planning for the possibility that the wage earner may die or leave or become disabled or unemployed someday in the future.

BTW, I say "one parent" deliberately. I have friends where the SAH spouse is Dad, not Mom and they do everything the "traditional" SAHM does.

OTOH, JJ and MsGreer, a Mom (like me) who has a job outside of the home still has to provide everything a SAHM does PLUS work. I don't think that makes me better than a SAHM, though - just more tired.

871. CalGal - 5/14/2001 10:58:36 AM

Actually it is possible (for a bare minority) to provide financially for your children, no matter what happens, and still be a SAH parent.

As in rich people? Sure. It is also possible for parents to work different hours so that one parent is always home. Thus abolishing the excuse that some parents "can't afford" daycare.

I suspect that a survey would show that most sah dads were fully capable of providing for their children financially without any assistance from the mother, if necessary. Fathers do consider sah-ing a luxury, from what I can see.

JJ and MsGreer, a Mom (like me) who has a job outside of the home still has to provide everything a SAHM does PLUS work.

Exactly.

Lately there has been much talk about how mothers provide some $640,000 of labor a year. Right. By daycare? Housecleaning? Cooking? Running errands?

Using those standards, almost everyone provides an enormous amount of unpaid labor every year.

872. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 11:11:24 AM

Two things I heard on the radio have me thinking:

1. The U.S. has the highest per capita rate of incarceration of possibly any nation.
   
2. Alabama ranks 5^th in the nation in per capita rate of incarceration.

Since I live in Alabama, I thought, "here's something I can directly observe myself."

But I don't have time for that sort of shit. I'm just curious: the apparent source of our burgeoning prison population is drug-related offenses. My guess is that Alambama leads in prison population in part because it has a lot of poor people, and poor people are more likely to use crack, and crack has the stiffest penalties.

I suppose that this is a symptom of some deeper Social Issue: people do drugs despite negative consequences. But why?

It seems to me that the current strategy for dealing with this problem--throw young men in jail--is a kind of eugenics program. (i.e.: throw young men who commit crimes in jail, they have fewer children, down the road there is less crime.) The tacit assumption of this approach being that drug-related crime has a strong genetic component or possibly a non-genetic compenent (e.g. attitudes and beliefs) that is passed from parent to child.

Is this correct? Will the current strategy of throwing people in jail simply for possessing drugs work in the long run? Even if it does work, is it a bad strategy for some other reason?

vw -- If this has already been discussed, please direct me to the conversation.

873. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:11:29 AM

LadyChaos

Ronski just linked that, and a response in Politics.
I'm guessing that Krugman would recoil at the thought that he was supporting a libertarian argument.

There are some (albeit tiny) positive steps in the government controlled sector. I just happened to be reading the NY city revised bridge and tunnel rates this morning (how that happened, I've forgotten).
They have a differential rate for the GW bridge, giving a cheaper rate off-peak. They eliminated an all-bridges option because they realized they were subsidizing people to increase congestion.
Small steps, but at least someone is realizing that a better match of incentives with costs will help promote desirable behavior.

874. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:15:57 AM

Slackjaw

Of course he recognizes the implications for private provision, those being rather obvious. Why would you be so presumptuous as to say he probably doesn't?

875. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:19:08 AM

Will the current strategy of throwing people in jail simply for possessing drugs work in the long run?

876. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 11:23:05 AM

Thanks Dusty. What, in your opinion, is the (most) faulty premise behind the lock-'em-up approach?

877. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:26:13 AM

Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana
I haven't read the ruling. For all I know, it may be the correct legal conclusion.
But it ought not to be the position of this country.
So what's the next step? Federal legislation? Is there any chance that a majority of legislators might sign on to a sensible law?

878. Dusty - 5/14/2001 11:29:38 AM

ElliottRW
Using crack is a pretty dumb decision, but putting people in jail for dumb decisions is even dumber. (I presume)A stretch in jail tends to have major negative consequences for the economic future of an individual, on average. It is a punishment all out of proportion to the "crime".

879. Ronski - 5/14/2001 11:37:55 AM

Actually, Lady K. posted a Krugman column, and I, in Politics, an op-ed by Cornell's Robert Frank (plus a response from the Mises Institute).

880. Ronski - 5/14/2001 11:45:52 AM

I came across an interesting statistic recently. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is legal, fewer teenagers have tried it than in the U.S., where it is not.

I'll see if I can track that down and post it.

I'm not at all surprised by the Supremes' action. It will be up to Congress to make the much-needed medical exception to marijuana use.

For the record, there are certain god-awful conditions, like severe nausea in some AIDS and cancer patients, which only smokable marijuana will ameliorate, regardless of what any physician or drug warrior will tell you.

881. ElliottRW - 5/14/2001 12:02:14 PM

...out of proportion to the crime.

So you are suggesting that non-jail punishments would provide equal or greater deterence? Can I assume that you give no credence to the idea that long jail sentences are not intended to simply to deter use, but also to remove drug users from society?

I agree with you, by the way, that it is generally wrong (or at least unwise) for society to prohibit people from making bad decisions that really only affect the person making the decision.

882. CalGal - 5/14/2001 9:40:04 PM

If we wanted to reduce the birth count of future drug users, it would be far better to lock up the women. For that reason, I disagree that there is any intent behind the drug imprisonment laws.

The majority of those incarcerated for drugs are also poor. Were we to cease locking them up, it would just create more problems--increased birth rate among the poor, and a lot of poor men who are generally incapable of supporting themselves.

Dusty is a libertarian, so he won't consider this a social problem. Nonetheless, I can assure you that it would be considered a social problem, and a big one. So if we made drugs legal, figure that right behind it would be another law that would make it possible to lock up a bunch of people.

I'm not saying I think drugs shouldn't be legal--I think it is irrelevant to addressing addiction, so I don't much care one way or another. But the real issue behind so many young (and quite often black) men being locked up has more to due with the fact that we have nothing else to do with a large number of very poorly raised, often abused, and usually illiterate group.

The cycle of longterm welfare is an ugly one.

883. Slackjaw - 5/14/2001 11:14:15 PM

Dusty Message # 874

He was taking a slap at an administration whose stated goal is (evidently) "getting the incentives right" but seems unwilling to take the requisite steps to make that happen.

884. LadyChaos - 5/15/2001 10:53:36 PM

ElliotRW,

The problems of drug prohibition are so numerous that I hesitate to get started, but I'll just hit a few major points:

1. Drug prohibition creates economic incentives for the development of black markets, which has the effect of atomizing distribution. When it isn't legal to buy something anywhere, it has a way of becoming available everywhere. This is why kids report that it is easier for them to score pot or heroin than it is for them to buy beer.
Also, fighting black markets often has a counterintuitive effect, in that every successful interdiction only strengthens the market in the long run. Imagine the government doing an antitrust action in reverse - going around and destroying competitors to Microsoft. Such action only leaves the strong stronger. Moreover, when the government actually scores what it calls a success, other unintended consequences occur. For example, destroying the Medellin cartel had the effect of atomizing cocaine production; sort of like nuclear proliferation in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the drug is manufactured in many more places, now. Another example is that, even if the government interdicts enough drugs to raise the street price, the effect is to draw more sellers into the market, because they are willing to take the risk for the extraordinary profits available to them.

885. LadyChaos - 5/15/2001 10:54:08 PM

cont'd

2. The logic of black markets leads sellers and distributors to create more and more potent forms of their products, because when you're trading in something that's illegal to sell, it makes sense to do so. For that reason, prohibition makes drug use more dangerous than it would be in a legal market. What if caffeine was suddenly made illegal? It seems likely that you would quickly have a black market in coffee, but as coffee became too risky to transport, you would soon begin to see a black market in high-purity "No-Doze" pills. Eventually, dealers might develop other, more potent, delivery methods.

3. Black markets breed corruption. Lots of it.

4. Prohibition has led to the erosion of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and, to some extent, the 1st amendments to the Constitution. Thanks to the drug war, you no longer have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, you no longer have a right to counsel of your choice, and if your property is confiscated by the government, you have very few rights to due process.
Part of the problem here is that, as Dr. Pilon has written, where there is no measurable wrong to quantify the remedy to be sought, then just about any punishment can be justified due to simple moral outrage. Thus, while the harm to society by consensual drug use is nil, we punish drug users and dealers more severely than other criminals because we don't like them.

886. LadyChaos - 5/15/2001 10:59:17 PM

Cont'd

Another problem wrought by the drug war has been the way that law enforcement has been allowed to raise revenue and set its own budget priorities, without political oversight, by using forfeitures of drug property. This has perversely given law enforcement a stake in the profitability of the black market.

A "friend" of mine has written a Law Review article on the topic, which I recommend for anyone who is interested in learning about the distortions of policy incentives wrought by this sort of thing.

887. LadyChaos - 5/15/2001 11:02:57 PM

Dusty,

I haven't had time to read about the medical marijuana decision, but I expected this when I read the oral argument transcript. The Court seemed concerned that the Cannabis Buyer's Club lacked standing to assert a medical necessity defense. My hope is that they would be more kind to an individual patient asserting the defense.

Of course, I agree with Dr. Pilon that Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to engage in the drug war. If the Framers could see what we have done with the Commerce Clause in the 20th century (turning it into a general police power of the federal government), they would roll in their graves.

888. Dusty - 5/16/2001 10:29:57 AM

Slackjaw

He was taking a slap at an administration whose stated goal is (evidently) "getting the incentives right" but seems unwilling to take the requisite steps to make that happen.

889. Dusty - 5/16/2001 10:34:07 AM

LadyChaos

The Court seemed concerned that the Cannabis Buyer's Club lacked standing to assert a medical necessity defense. My hope is that they would be more kind to an individual patient asserting the defense.

890. Dusty - 5/16/2001 10:39:39 AM

ElliottRW

Can I assume that you give no credence to the idea that long jail sentences are not intended to simply to deter use, but also to remove drug users from society?

891. LadyChaos - 5/16/2001 3:26:15 PM

Dusty,

The distinction between how the defense might be asserted by individuals as opposed to the Cannabis Buyer's Club is a nuanced one.

The basis for the Court's rejection of the medical necessity defense this week was that Congress had declared marijuana to be a Schedule 1 drug that had "no accepted medical use." The Court narrowly held that medical necessity is not a defense to "manufacturing and distributing marijuana." This means that an entity may not assert the medical necessity defense as to distribution of marijuana. It does not go so far as to say that no one can ever assert a medical necessity defense.

There are a number of constitutional issues that the Court expressly did not address, such as whether Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause, and whether as applied to an individual the statute violates the substantive due process rights of seriously ill patients. What if someone discovers an herb that can be grown in the yard that, in their opinion and in the opinion of a growing minority of health professional, is an effective treatment for a serious illness? And what if a seriously ill patient chooses to grow that plant in her yard and use it to treat her illness? These are questions which were not addressed, but are alluded to in Justice Stevens' concurring opinion.

892. wonkers2 - 5/16/2001 7:43:41 PM

Well, we've gotta keep them "for profit prisons" full. And Pinkerton's was a big Bush contributor.

893. vw - 5/22/2001 11:57:39 AM

Marriage incentives for poor considered

It's widely expected that when Congress renews the 1996 welfare law next year, social conservatives will press to earmark millions of dollars for marriage education, require states to end some income tests that discourage parents from getting married, and reward single mothers with cash bonuses if they marry the child's father.

894. Dusty - 5/22/2001 12:33:52 PM

LadyChaos

I finally got around to reading some of the law review article you linked. Very interesting reading. Thanks.

895. ChristiPeters - 5/22/2001 1:10:34 PM

"....I believe the State should be showing less interests in marriage and more interest in regulating legally-binding contractual agreements between people (whoever they are) who are raising children. Leave that whole marriage thing to religions and keep my government out of it."

Here! Here!

(applause! applause!)

896. vw - 5/22/2001 2:42:04 PM

Well, despite political hand wringing it looks like US kids are doing better then they were a decade ago.

Fascinating how the child poverty rate has dropped nationally in the same two years that the Bush Administration is saying were seeing the horrendous cost on children from the increasing scourge of single-parent families

897. CalGal - 5/22/2001 3:11:32 PM

vw,

Add me to the "hear, hear!" list. You'd think they'd have figured it out by now--they've eliminated every advantage of marriage for the children by giving it to children of unmarried couples. So why focus so heavily on marriage?

Has anyone ever studied the divorce rate of the rich over the years?

898. ElliottRW - 5/22/2001 4:26:17 PM

Why would we want to put drug users in jail, where they are a cost to society, rather than a productive contributor to society? It is a myth that all drug users spend their waking hours committing crimes. Even heroin addicts can hold down productive jobs.

This is correct unless you consider drug use in and of itself to be a problem, irrespective of the productivity of the user. The reasoning behind incarcerating drug users rests also upon the notion that drug use is communicable--a problem that is spread from one drug user to another. Obviously, there is no heroin virus, but jail inmates don't invite their pals to raves, either. So we can suppose that incarcerated drug users are less likely to spread their problem to other members of society--except, of course, other jail inmates.

But that's just an explanation; I don't see it that way myself. I was just curious to see if anyone here bought into that kind of reasoning. To me it seems that such a strategy could only work if drug use is strictly genetic and jail significantly reduces the birth rates of users. If that's not the case then the strategy truly is hopeless. Unlike, say, Ebola victims, drug users are not incarcerated for the duration of their "illness." Moreover, only a tiny fraction of drug users are incarcerated at any one time. Not an effective quarantine.

My best guess is that laws that throw drug users in jail are primarily designed to make life easy on cops. Such laws make it so that cops don't have to do the hard work of proving intent to distribute, they just have to show possession.

899. amax - 5/22/2001 8:22:57 PM

I'm not saying I think drugs shouldn't be legal--I think it is irrelevant to addressing addiction, so I don't much care one way or another. But the real issue behind so many young (and quite often black) men being locked up has more to due with the fact that we have nothing else to do with a large number of very poorly raised, often abused, and usually illiterate group.

I'd go further: I believe that locking up drug dealers, in particular, deprives poor communities of their most entrepenural, risk taking members. These are the people who want to do well, are willing to take risks, and apparently have enough brains to survive as entrepreneurs in a competitive enviornment. They are the ones who grow up on the street, look around to see who is successful, and decide to get into drug dealing -- as a conscious decision. Legalize drugs and distribution of drugs, and somehow I doubt that running numbers and such will be nearly as appealing a career choice, because there isn't the huge money to be made.

900. vw - 5/22/2001 9:32:54 PM

My best guess is that laws that throw drug users in jail are primarily designed to make life easy on cops.

Oh pooh. Most cops I know would love to see the War on Drugs end. Their jobs have become astoundingly more dangerous since politicians started using "zero tolerance" on drugs as a major election plank. Nothing like standing in front of a camera blustering on and on about the devastating effects of drugs on the community to get good coverage for the polls.

What amazes me is that enough voting Americans continue to be stupid enough to buy it.

901. wonkers2 - 5/22/2001 10:26:24 PM

Any thoughts on the Massachusetts woman governor, whose name escapes me, who just had twins and continues to serve while on family leave, if I understand correctly? She was in the hospital for a couple of weeks before delivering and conducted meetings by teleconferences. There have been some objections although she is apparently covered by parental leave laws. Her situation is becoming a cause celebre for women's groups. I believe she and her husband already have one child and he stays home and cares for the children. I heard snippets about the situation on a talk show today.

902. alistairconnor - 5/23/2001 3:01:27 AM

Well, I can't frankly see what the problem is, Wonk. There was a French minister who had a baby a year or two ago, and nobody batted an eyelid. I have a friend in New Zealand who was in a similar situation a few years ago. Any remaining prejudice can only be a hangover from bygone days when childbirth was considered to be a serious illness requiring quarantine.

Let me put it another way : if the governer had broken her leg and had been hospitalised for a couple of weeks, then was convalescent for a month or two, would she be expected to step down?

903. stostosto - 5/23/2001 8:10:50 AM

alistair, wonk

there is a similar example in this country involving our minister of education. No one blinked one way or the other over that.

904. stostosto - 5/23/2001 8:12:33 AM

Perhaps if it had been the PM, it would have been another matter? I don't know.

Btw, the Norwegian PM was on leave for several months due to clinical depression. That was a year or two back.

905. alistairconnor - 5/23/2001 8:30:51 AM

I know it's awful, Sto, but I find that howlingly funny. So very Scandinavian.

906. Shannon - 5/23/2001 8:31:52 AM

We discussed this briefly in Parenting last week.

It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. No more so than an elected official having surgery, a heart attack, etc. All of which happen with some regularity.

Somehow, I don't think Americans would react very well if one of their leaders were hospitalized for depression. But then, I've never been accused of being an optimist.

907. christipeters - 5/23/2001 9:33:41 AM

In spite of education campaigns to the contrary, many people I know still look on depression as a character weakness or permanent mental defect that means the person is forever "unfit".

908. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 11:08:38 AM

vw: Most cops I know would love to see the War on Drugs end.

Sure. I don't disagree with that. Let me clarify my comment: IMO, laws that create stiff sentences for drug users are attempts to make it easier for cops to put drug dealers in jail. The fact that such laws wind up putting a lot of simple addicts in jail is an unfortunate (and, in my mind damning) side effect. But my point was narrow, made in the context of an assumed "war on drugs."

909. iiibbb - 5/23/2001 2:18:07 PM

Forget the war on drugs... start a war on violent crime.

910. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:20:59 PM

alistaire, et al, I see no problem either. She's setting a great example by asserting her rights.

911. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:24:57 PM

The land of "family values" is way behind the rest of the world. We have minimal parental leave (with no pay), dose the kiddies with violent TV and video games, provide them with handguns and assault weapons and then try and sentence them as adults when they go astray. The Columbines should be no mystery to anyone.

912. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:32:03 PM

Gosh. It's that simple, huh?

913. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:34:09 PM

Yeah.

914. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:35:23 PM

Prayer in schools just doesn't get the job done.

915. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:37:40 PM

Neither does parental leave of four weeks--or even a year--for infants, dufus.

916. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:39:24 PM

Tch! So quick to resort to name calling. In Germany women get 3 years, not 4 weeks, WITH PAY and longer with reduced pay. And their jobs are saved until they are ready to return to work.

917. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:40:28 PM

And look at all the Nazis those chicks gave birth to.

918. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:44:34 PM

THESE chicks weren't even born when Nazis were in fashion.

919. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:49:57 PM

Right, but I'm pretty sure parental leave came after the Nazis.

920. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:50:37 PM

Judith,

Actually, I have no idea when Germany implemented their ludicrous social programs. Nonetheless, extreme political views are still to be found over there, despite all that nurturing.

The larger point is that Wonker is a moron, of course.

921. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:52:45 PM

There you go again. Why don't you make your argument and skip the name calling, you dumnb bitch?

922. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 2:53:14 PM

Er, I meant smelly cunt.

923. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 2:55:47 PM

Having lived over there and known many German parents, I think I can say they do as good a job as any other industrialized nation in regard to parenting.

And there are extreme political views in this country, Cal...that's hardly a factor.

924. CalGal - 5/23/2001 2:59:33 PM

Why is it that so many people feel the need to up the ante on insults?

Wonkers, there is no need to rebut. Your position is that if we adopted European social policies that all of a sudden all of our violent crime would magically disappear. Women would stay home as intended, except that the government would protect their jobs--a breathtaking contradiction, of course.

I see no problem with supporting stupid social policies--and lord knows, many of the European policies are ones that ensure their best and brightest will come to America. But let's not pretend they do anything other than protect the weak. There sure as hell is no suggestion they cut down on crime, much less fix broken teens.

925. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:00:13 PM

And there are extreme political views in this country, Cal...that's hardly a factor.


No, that's the point. Wonkers says that once we have three years of childcare,all our problems will disappear!

926. Dusty - 5/23/2001 3:01:09 PM

wonkers2

And their jobs are saved until they are ready to return to work.

927. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 3:02:13 PM

The larger point is that Wonker is a moron, of course.

Now this is an abuse of terms. Wonker is certainly not a moron. No one on The Mote is a moron (though a "wiegel" poster in the "Sex" thread came close).

That said, I think that the relationship between Germany's leave laws and school violence is at best a coincidence. Germany is desparate for more young people. The parental leave laws in Germany are clearly a bribe to get people to have kids, not a rational violence prevention measure.

928. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:04:19 PM

Elliot,

Well, of course they are desperate for kids. Many European countries are. A good percentage of their productive population probably leaves town to go somewhere that appreciates their talents, rather than take all their money so some know nothing can pop out kids and take three paid years off.

But it's true that Wonkers isn't a moron. I just enjoy fussing him.

929. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:06:31 PM

In my last post, I imply a causal relationship between the fact that European countries need people and that all their best and brightest leave town.

I was being flip. I'm sure there are many reasons behind the low birth rate.

930. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 3:08:24 PM

Germans usually have very small families...it's rare to see more than 2 kids to a family.

And there are very talented people there so I guess not all of them run from the Fatherland.

931. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:10:39 PM

Cal, I didn'say anything of the kind. I merely pointed out that the U.S. is way behind the rest of the civilized world in terms of parental leave. Elliot, Germany isn't the only country with generous parental leave provisions. Scandinavia may be even more liberal. The point is that the "family values" tend to be the same people who are opposed to most programs which would benefit children. They want school prayer and vouchers for religious schools but no sex education in public schools, no pre-natal care, etc, etc. Just kick the mothers off welfare and make them go to work.

932. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:13:23 PM

...it's rare to see more than 2 kids to a family.

And that makes them different from us...how, exactly?

I didn't say they all left. At the same time, it is to be expected that a percentage of those with more to contribute will leave to a place that allows them to advance.

Wonkers,

I merely pointed out that the U.S. is way behind the rest of the civilized world in terms of parental leave.

No, that's not all you did. You then said that this is what caused Columbine.

933. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:16:03 PM

Cal, what's your solution? Give them access to guns, make their mothers go back to work immediately with no help on child care, let them watch lots of violent TV shows, provide no wholesome recreation or job opportunities, when they screw up throw them into prisons without rehabilitation or education, and when they really screw up try and sentence them as adults. Those are American family values. Just what are you in favor of doing?

934. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 3:16:51 PM

Cal:

Why do you think I am comparing us and them? I just made a statement. There ARE more families in Germany with only children, I'd gladly bet. And I seriously doubt you'd fine many or indeed any with 7 or 8 kids or any women taking fertility drugs and having sextuplets or more.

935. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:20:09 PM

Wonkers,

Don't distract off point. You said that giving mothers 3 years off for child care would eliminate Columbine incidents and violence in general. You did not "merely" say that European social policies are different.

936. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:20:51 PM

Cal, I did not say lack of parental leave caused Columbine. I listed several factors in addition to Columbine. But if you want to be picky, I was simply using Columbine as an example of a symptom of teen problems today. Actually Columbine type events, fortunately, are rare and are not the most pervasive or serious problems about which we are doing relatively nothing while the top 1% gets even more obscenely richer.

937. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:21:29 PM

With the help of Bush and his band of compassionate conservatives.

938. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 3:23:07 PM

Wonkers, I see your point. There is apparent hypocrisy. But "family values" is a nebulous term, which means different things to different people. Some people, for example, see family values as keeping government away from children. Which, taken to an extreme, implies no government controlled daycare, education, healthcare, etc. The same people (for the most part) are perfectly willing to accept a handout (say, a voucher) as long as they control how it is spent.

So I don't see this phenomenon as hypocrisy; it's just as run-of-the-mill me-and-mine-first politics.

939. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:24:19 PM

Judith,

Statistically speaking, the number of women in this country who have 7 or 8 kids is miniscule. Any concerns we have about population are not mitigated by our enormous families.

It would have been simple enough to mention German women's fertility rates, which are extremely low. Rather than talk about "one kid per family" and fertility drugs.

940. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:25:44 PM

Finally, you are the one who is into insults, not me. I try to give reasons for my positions, not insults.

941. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 3:27:21 PM

Yes, Cal...probably it would have been simple.

942. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 3:32:52 PM

But I don't know anything about German womens fertility rates being low so I stumbled around in my own way saying what I did.

943. wonkers2 - 5/23/2001 3:35:13 PM

Elliott, the family values people I'm referring to are the Pat Robertsons, the Falwells, the Ashcrofts and other religious wackos that elected Bush. The religious right are not in the forefront of social programs other than, perhaps, TV censorship, school prayer and vouchers.

944. JudithAtHome - 5/23/2001 3:36:52 PM

And boycotting Disneyland.

945. CalGal - 5/23/2001 3:42:55 PM

Any "social program" that interferes with employment can hardly be called a "family" program.

946. ElliottRW - 5/23/2001 3:46:49 PM

Wonk: those guys are all politicians. They might indeed be hypocrits. I assumed you were referring to their constituents who, by and large, are not hypocritical. They genuinely believe that their politics are for "family values" in precisely the don't-tell-me-how-to-raise-my-kids kind of way that I described in Message # 938. To these people "family values" means the idea that "the family" should make decisions about its own welfare, not government.

947. Dusty - 5/23/2001 3:46:50 PM

JudithAtHome

Actually, you are correct. The fertility rate in Germany is 1.4—significantly lower than the rate in the US of 2.1

948. iiibbb - 5/23/2001 4:02:50 PM

If columbine type events are rare and not pervasive, why use them as an example? In Message # 933 you use extremes validate your earlier statements which is hardly fair. Who is arguing give the kids guns and ignore mother's needs? By rejecting you claim that we need to offer 3 yrs off to mothers is hardly an endoursement of the opposite extreme.

949. iiibbb - 5/23/2001 4:08:38 PM

Message # 936

an excellent example of piling on... within 9 lines wonkers takes us from Columbine to teen "problems" to other unspecific societal problems problems to top 1% of wealthy having lots of power.

951. wonkers2 - 5/24/2001 8:36:03 AM

Cal, You are one of the most dishonest and nasty participants in this forum. First, you completely mischaractized what I said and added an insult. When I didn't respond with an insult, you called me a moron. When I responded in kind you expressed surprise at MY "ante up on insults" when you were the one who anted up before I descended into your mud pile. What incredible chutzpah! Teen problems are complex--I mentioned parental leaves, access to guns, violence on television, etc. I never said, nor do I believe that parental leave or any other simplistic solution would solve Columbine or other teen problems. The problems are many and so will be the solutions. My problem is with people like you who don't appear to be interested in looking for solutions.

953. vw - 5/24/2001 9:20:06 AM

The land of "family values" is way behind the rest of the world. We have minimal parental leave (with no pay), dose the kiddies with violent TV and video games, provide them with handguns and assault weapons and then try and sentence them as adults when they go astray. The Columbines should be no mystery to anyone.

Well, the under 100 school assault shootings we have had since 1972(? Maybe 1976) are definitely a mystery. And they seem to have little or nothing to do with your laundry list of items with the exception that they had access of some sort to weapons.

The only similarities between the shooters in these cases is that they have all been male and they were all depressed to the point of considering suicide.

They covered the entire range of academic performance from straight A to all failing grades. They included kids that by all accounts were extremely popular to those with a very small circle of friends. They came from families that ranged from intact, loving concerned families to having been raised in foster care after being removed from an abusive home.

These boys were not universally “forgotten” by the system, let down by society, ignored by their parents or living a life devoid of family values no matter how you define them.

They were depressed and suicidal but instead of putting a gun to their own head they pointed it at others.

Finding out why these boys made that critical decision (and it was a decision for each of them) is a matter of understanding the psychological pathology of the transition from suicidal to homicidal. It has nothing to do the favorite social issue of fault de Jour.

954. JudithAtHome - 5/24/2001 9:22:27 AM

The only similarities between the shooters in these cases is that they have all been male and they were all depressed to the point of considering suicide.

I thought I read somewhere that they all played violent video games, too...

955. iiibbb - 5/24/2001 9:22:47 AM

Sorry wonk.. your arguments go something like this

Some child in a neighborhood in Dayton was hit by a car last week after running a stop sign... There are many uninsured drivers... Animals are becoming extinct

...And that's why government should restrict cars to greater than 20 mpg fuel efficiency

956. vw - 5/24/2001 9:23:47 AM

Posts 950 and 952 moved to The Inferno. Posts that are only insults and do not contain any
on-topic content will be moved.

957. Adrianne - 5/24/2001 9:37:04 AM

Vicki

Have you read "Ghosts in the Nursery?" I'm reading it now, it's a very interesting discussion of early childhood and the relationship between neurological/chemical pathway development in the infant brain and later violence and behavioral problems in children.

Also, Gavin de Becker, in "The Gift of Fear" makes some pretty good points about those seemingly normal families that spawn mass murderers. The reports of "normalcy" are largely self-reported, after all, or gleened from neighbors or bystanders. He says, "Gee, ya think maybe something could be going on in those homes that the neighbors aren't privy to?"

958. Adrianne - 5/24/2001 9:39:11 AM

Anecdotal and hypothetical:

You (vicki) know a bit about my ss's life. Yet, if (God forbid) he committed one of the school shootings or something similar, news reports would peg him as a nice, quiet kid, good student, devoted mother and involved father.

I don't need to describe to you how that doesn't begin to tell the real story of his childhood.

959. christipeters - 5/24/2001 9:48:28 AM

I have two entirely separate comments:
1. "Finding out why these boys made that critical decision .... is a matter of understanding the psychological pathology of the transition from suicidal to homicidal." I just wanted to comment that when a co-worker of mine "went postal", he had previously attempted suicide ( about a month before this incident). The investigative and psychology teams told us they were starting to call it "suicide by cop".

2."He says, "Gee, ya think maybe something could be going on in those homes that the neighbors aren't privy to?"" I know a family where the son was putting his fist through doors and windows, and the daughter was withdrawn and suicidal -while the kids were in elementary school. However, everyone who knew the family was saying "gosh, those poor parents to have kids that must have been born with mental problems." After all, the parents were white, middle-class, college-grads, and upstanding members of the church and community. So, of course, nothing bad could possibly have been going on in the home.

Yeah. Right.

960. ElliottRW - 5/24/2001 10:34:37 AM

I am inclined to agree with vw on this point. Psychologists are intensely studying these cases and they really don't (as yet) have a solid theory that explains them. They really don't know why these things happen. They have identified some coexisting factors (e.g. depression) but causes at this point are either speculation, or isolated to a small subset of cases. For example, the guy who climbed the Texas tower had a brain tumor that was squeezing his amygdala, a brain structure linked to aggression.

961. christipeters - 5/24/2001 10:38:01 AM

(well, in case it wasn't obvious from my post - I agree, too)

962. Adrianne - 5/24/2001 10:39:55 AM

Elliot

I don't believe that there is a magic cure, or a particular event/trait/etc that all of these kids experience, that you can point at and say AHA! That's it!

But I also don't believe that people just "snap", and I'm willing to bet that in each and every case they were, in some way, "let down by society, ignored by their parents or living a life devoid of family values no matter how you define them."

963. vw - 5/24/2001 11:28:04 AM

The reports of "normalcy" are largely self-reported

I think you misunderstood me, Adrianne. I was not arguing that they are normal or not normal. I was saying that the usual demographic information that people like to latch onto as a “cause” (raised by a single mother, abused as a baby, bullied in school, etc) does not hold consistently across the pool of school assault shooters.

We can’t blame single-parent homes because many of them came from intact families. We can’t blame working mothers because some of them were raised by SAHMs. We can’t blame being ostracized by peers because some of them were relatively popular.

On the whole, I discount neighbor and schoolmate “testimony” … they not only don’t always know what is going on as you noted, but they also tend to latch onto a social factor similar to the ones above to explain what they saw as happening. The neighbors will tell you it’s because the mother was never home. The schoolmates will tell you it’s because he got peas thrown on him in the lunchroom by the jocks.

But I also don't believe that people just "snap", and I'm willing to bet that in each and every case they were, in some way, "let down by society, ignored by their parents or living a life devoid of family values no matter how you define them."

I agree with the not snapping part. These boys planned these attacks often as much as two and three weeks in advance. That by definition is not “snapping”. That is premeditated.

But each and every case does not show that they were "let down by society, ignored by their parents or living a life devoid of family values no matter how you define them.” Some of them were being assisted in every way possible (therapy, medication, etc.)

964. vw - 5/24/2001 12:35:25 PM

I really like this article. It speaks in part to my point up above.

"In rising panic, culture warriors left to right indict explicit video games, television, gangsta rap music, R-rated movies, Internet images, and 'toxic culture' for causing teenage violent crime, drug abuse, sex, and unhealthy behavior."

965. CalGal - 5/24/2001 12:44:26 PM

It's very frustrating every time one of these events happen to see the agenda whores come out in full cry, pushing their particular pussy for sale.

Did anyone read the Time piece following up on the school shooters?

I had always thought the Jonesboro killers had started the trend, but it appears to have been Luke Woodham, in Pearl Mississippi who kicked the whole thing off when he brutally beat his mother to death and then killed two classmates at school.

966. vw - 5/24/2001 12:56:42 PM

Hey Cal, there you are!

Well, if I were forced in to the life of being an agenda whore, I would choose one less obvious then the usual social issue suspects. I save my fishnets for the opinion that we’ve reared a generation of young people that do not have a full understanding of what the word “consequence” means.

We are living in the age of entitlements. Nothing you do will have a permanent effect on you because somewhere someplace there is someone willing to make the bad stuff go away. If parents, society, schools have let these children down, we did so by not making them accountable for their actions before the costs to themselves and others was so horrendously high.

That is why I am so dead set against charging children under the age of 16 as adults. I do not believe they have the cognitive “stuff” to fully understand the implications of their actions.

Off to read the Times article.

967. PsychProf - 5/24/2001 1:01:10 PM

TEENS AND ALCOHOL

968. CalGal - 5/25/2001 2:49:01 PM

Oh, I wasn't really talking about anyone here as an agenda whore--just the process that occurs after one of these incidents.

If parents, society, schools have let these children down, we did so by not making them accountable for their actions before the costs to themselves and others was so horrendously high.

But has that changed in any way from the past? That's not a rhetorical question. Did kids in the past have more awareness of consequences?

969. vw - 5/25/2001 3:04:36 PM

I can't quote anything measurable ... it's just my own observations (faulty as they maybe). Which is what makes it excellent “agenda whore” fodder! (I knew you didn’t mean anyone specific, I just like it as a phrase)

Specifically I see it in schools. NYS has "policied" punishment almost into nonexistence ... including a slick little rule that says punishment should not result in the child feeling ashamed.

Excuse me?!?! No shame? Exactly what is the purpose of punishment if the child does not end up feeling ashamed of their bad behavior?

I recall a teacher who was fired for making a 12-year-old stand in the trashcan because he was using "trash language" (swearing) at the teacher. The parents freaked, demanded a hearing and the School Board found her actions to harsh and terminated her. Do you remember what would have happened to us if we had called a 7th grade teacher a mother fucker?

So yeah, I am making a huge leaping conclusion. It would be interesting to see a study on it though.

970. JJBiener - 5/25/2001 3:08:47 PM

vw - Do you remember what would have happened to us if we had called a 7th grade teacher a mother fucker?

No, no one in my school ever dared.

971. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:17:12 PM

vw,

That's the sort of thing I was wondering about. I am particularly disappointed when I discover that teachers have been tolerating Spawn's disrespect. If I hear about it, he knows he's toast (in fact, when he was younger, he would say fearfully, "You aren't going to tell my mom about this, are you?")

I agree that the problem is that parents protest the behavior as harmful to their little darlings.

The problem is that the same intolerance that prohibited disrespect also prohibited differences of any sort. Protest unreasonable intolerance of difference and lose all intolerance as a result.

But intolerance per se isn't a bad thing. There's all sorts of things that we should not tolerate. Likewise, I think we need a lot more tolerance of a child's discomfort when they've done a bad thing.

We just have to find the baby and yank it back into the tub.

972. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 3:22:35 PM

Parents in Dallas protested when the school kicked their kids out for drinking at a school function; the parents even brought a lawsuit against the school board. What does this tell a kid who just broke school rules? That they will not have to pay the consequences of their actions.

973. PsychProf - 5/25/2001 3:29:51 PM

Judith...many parents buy the booze for HShoolers. Teen Drinking is considered a "right" by many adults, and is endemic in our high schools. I see the results of this daily as a college prof.

974. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:34:29 PM

PP, you miss the point.

Judith,

Part of the problem is that kicking kids out of school doesn't accomplish anything. Don't get me wrong, I agree the lawsuit is stupid. But does drinking in school justify ruining a kid's chances at any college? Besides, it's a consequence that doesn't really have much meaning to the kid.

Why not a punishment that has some real teeth?

975. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 3:44:47 PM

Like what? Lining them up against the wall and shooting them? Hell, if they get sued for expelling the little shits, what do you think would happen if they "put teeth" in the punishment?

976. PsychProf - 5/25/2001 3:46:26 PM

Haha...I see you have not missed my point Judith.

977. CalGal - 5/25/2001 3:55:21 PM

Hell, if they get sued for expelling the little shits, what do you think would happen if they "put teeth" in the punishment?


Why should they be expelled? Ban them from all school activities for the year. Give them detention every single day. Double their homework assignments. Make them come early to school for work detail.

PP,

She hasn't missed the point. You did.

978. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 3:57:16 PM

And Cal, you say that kicking kids out of school doesn't accomplish anything but then you say what purpose is served in ruining their chances at getting into college? Don't you think if more were done to impress on kids minds that their actions may impact their chances, they might wise up?

Besides, my original post was to point out that parents actions when their little dears break the law can turn the kids down the slippery slop to thinking nothing they do has consequences.

979. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:00:06 PM

Well, strangely enough, another Dallas school banned a group of cheerleaders from participating in school activities after they were caught smoking on school grounds and the same thing happened...teachers showed up and raised hell.

These parents are idiots, in my estimation.

980. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:00:31 PM

Not teachers...PARENTS showed up.

981. CalGal - 5/25/2001 4:01:13 PM

Don't you think if more were done to impress on kids minds that their actions may impact their chances, they might wise up?

No. As vw said, most kids have very little ability to grasp the outcome of their actions. College is years away. Make them suffer now, and in ways that won't hurt their future--only their present.

I agree with you about the lawsuits, and frankly I think that parents would still sue. But part of their justification in suing is that the punishment is too extreme for the crime. And they are right. I'm not sure they would get away with that justification if the punishment was detention for the year and banning from school activities.

982. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:07:04 PM

I agree that kids have slim abilities for grasping the outcome of their actions but whay is that? Because they are coddled into believing everything they do is precious and special...when should one start to teach them this? I say you don't wait til they are in junior high to say to them, "Oh by the way...real life is hard and what you do will come back to you."

My kid knew from the time he was 5 that if he pulled up the neighbors daffodils, he would have to march down there with his piggy bank and pay her for them. By the time he reached grade school, he knew whatever he did was his responsibility. It was not a surprise to him, in other words.

983. CalGal - 5/25/2001 4:20:35 PM

whay is that? Because they are coddled into believing everything they do is precious and special...when should one start to teach them this?

No, if vw is correct they have trouble with it because their brains aren't fully formed. A kid's inability to anticipate future consequences isn't some new fangled development.

My kid knew from the time he was 5 that if he pulled up the neighbors daffodils, he would have to march down there with his piggy bank and pay her for them.

That is an immediate consequence. If your kid knew from the time he was five that pulling up the neighbor's daffodils meant he didn't go to college, the gardens wouldn't stand a chance.

984. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:27:27 PM

Well, kids in high school are different from five year olds. One would imagine their brains would be more developed than a kid in kindergarten.

A kid in high school is old enough to know his actions have consequences, especially today with all the movies and TV playing teenage angst all over the place....their movies and music are full of it. And those are things they really listen to.

985. PsychProf - 5/25/2001 4:41:50 PM

Judith...it is interesting and indeed exciting that some brain development(see here ) continues into adolescence...it increases our "theorectical" chance for repair of damage. Equally depressing is the fact that early damage to the brain(eg CP) is for all practical purposes impervious to any known treatment.

986. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:45:52 PM

PP:

I just wish we could reverse the process when later in life, we become as little children.

I saw some MRIs of normal brain activity and that of people with Alzheimers..it scared me to death.

987. CalGal - 5/25/2001 4:49:21 PM

One would imagine their brains would be more developed than a kid in kindergarten.

They are. So a better comparison is telling your five year old that he won't get any candy six months from now if he pulls up the flowers--but until then, he'll get candy per usual.

A kid in high school is old enough to know his actions have consequences,

Unless you wish to argue that high school kids never did anything wrong until 30 years ago, I suspect you don't think that high school kids have always been a model of rectitude and good behavior. Teens often do things that make no sense to adults.

988. PsychProf - 5/25/2001 4:54:00 PM

Judith...I have spent most of my professional life researching this very topic. The ability to repair damaged neurons in adults, i.e. "plasticity of neurosynaptogenesis", would alleviate much human suffering.

989. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:56:14 PM

Of course they do...I used to be one and can still remember.

The thing with the piggy bank was that my kid had the first dollar he'd ever received...even at five, he "worked" and saved his money. Candy was not as alluring to him as money. So the punishment was very hard on him...the worst thing he could have been dealt.

990. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 4:56:51 PM

And yes, I know you were using that only as an example.

991. CalGal - 5/25/2001 4:59:15 PM

But the point is, Judith, that the punishment was immediate.

I think it is idiotic to kick kids out of school--and, more importantly, make their parents suffer--when instead you can make their lives a living hell.

The larger point, that parents sue to protect their kids from the consequences of their action, we agree on.

992. JudithAtHome - 5/25/2001 5:01:39 PM