The little post that grew

The New Neo Posted on by

It happens all too often. I see an article that catches my interest, and I think, Oh, I’ll write some remarks about that. It’ll just take a few minutes.

And then I begin. And I find I need to look up a couple of things. Just one or two. And those lead to a couple more, and I become curious about another thing, and before I know it I’ve spent a great deal more time than I originally expected to on the blasted post.

In fact, it readily becomes apparent that, to say everything I’d like to say, and back up my reasons for saying it, I’d have to write a lengthy article or even a book. Hey, maybe several books.

And so I stop, slap the post up there, and go on with my life. Case in point: today’s effort. It’s the tiny tip of a very large iceberg.

Schlafly and those unmarried women voting for Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Phyllis Schlafly has made the news with the following remarks, which have earned that common appellation, “controversial:”

Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly took aim at “unmarried women” at a recent fundraiser and in an interview with TPM, saying that they overwhelmingly support President Obama and are all on welfare. Democrats aim to exploit the comments to pressure the more than 60 Republican candidates who have earned Schlafly’s endorsement.

“Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have big brother government to be your provider,” said Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum and infamous for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

Democrats can aim to exploit her comments all they want; it’s what they do. Personally, I don’t think that every candidate endorsed by Schlafly is deemed to have endorsed everything she might say (the same, of course, is true for endorsers and endorsees on the left). But hey, that’s just me.

What interests me more is what Schlafly actually said, plus the entire demographic “unmarried women,” which seems absurd to me. It’s a term used by various research groups in studies, but it describes a conglomeration of women so disparate as to be virtually meaningless as a unit.

Think about it—“unmarried women” consists of women who have never been married (mostly younger ones, who will probably become married in the not-too-distant future), divorced women (many of whom will remarry, sometimes briefly and sometimes long-term), women with children and without, and widows (mostly older, most of whom will never remarry). What do these women have in common, besides being women, and besides being at least temporarily single?

As for unmarried women voting for Obama—whatever their reasons—some of this can be explained by the fact that they are predominantly young. Take a look at the chart found here:

unmarried_webtable.jpg

You can see that nearly a third of “unmarried women” are under thirty, 22% are over 65, and the rest are spread out among other age groups. What’s more, if you look at the “race” part of the chart, you’ll note that almost 30% of the unmarried women are either African-American or Hispanic. We already know that the young voted very strongly for Obama, and that women were more likely to vote for him than men, and that African-Americans were almost 100% behind him and Hispanics strongly so. Therefore I tend to think it’s not straining credulity to believe that the bulk (although not all) of the unmarried female vote for Obama can be accounted for by a combination of these three factors: age, gender, and race.

One other thing—do divorced unmarried women generally fall under the rubric of Schlafly’s “kicking their husbands out?” There is some basis to that claim, at least according to a related statistic, which of the spouses initiates legal action. Data indicates that in about 2/3 of cases, divorce is initiated by the wife, at least in the legal sense, and at least in marriages with children.

Of course, this tells us nothing about why the wife decides to call it quits. In a survey of divorces in midlife and beyond, for example, the reasons stated were as follows:

According to an AARP survey of older divorced people, 66 percent of women reported that they asked for the divorce, compared to 41 percent of men. However, the same survey reported that most women in their fifties or older said the top killers of their marriages were physical or emotional abuse, infidelity, and drug or alcohol abuse””and they put almost all of the blame on their ex-husbands. On the flip side, most fifty-plus men said they simply “fell out of love” or had “different values or lifestyles.”

How representative is this of the bulk of divorces? With no-fault divorce widespread, it’s hard to say; divorce decrees don’t ordinarily discuss marital fault anymore, and we must rely on self-report surveys, which can be self-serving and unreliable.

Who initiates a divorce can actually be a rather poor indicator of what led to the decision to terminate a marriage, although it may be the best indicator we have. Just contemplate the fact that it was Tiger Woods’s wife Elin who initiated their divorce proceedings and you’ll see what I mean. Divorce is such a complex he said/she said process that in general it’s probably best to assume these things are usually unknowable, even (or perhaps especially) to the main protagonists in the sad drama, the warring couple.

[NOTE: If anyone wants to wade through the sludge of this very lengthy report that attempts to shed light on the issue of what motivates divorce initiations by women, they are welcome to do so.]

It’s the its/it’s, stupid

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the most common error in English, and Spellcheck doesn’t catch it (although Spellcheck catches me when I attempt to spell Spellcheck “Spellcheck,” much preferring two words or a hyphenation to my single word). This prompts me to recycle this post of mine (ever-so-slightly edited):

I try my best to pay attention to grammar and spelling, helped out by the always-handy Spellcheck (shh—don’t tell anyone, but I’m not the world’s best speller, unaided).

But Spellcheck has its limits. And one of them is the proper use of the word “its.” “Its,” that is, vs. “it’s.”

Have you ever noticed how often those two words are confused? Even though I try to pay close attention, I’m always catching myself messing up, and my bet is that, despite my best efforts, some of them have slipped by here. I see it all the time in the work of others, too (and no, I’m not going to do an exhaustive search and link to examples; you’ll just have to take my word for it. Or not.)

The error almost always goes in one direction only: the use of the apostrophe, as in “it’s,” for the possessive form of the word, when it should only be used for the contraction “it is.” Example (the one that sparked this rumination): originally, instead of “…see this from Reuters, not known for its right-wing bias” I had written “…see this from Reuters, not known for it’s right-wing bias.”

Why do we do this? Are we all just stupid! No, no, a thousand times no! We are actually very smart, because we are extrapolating a general rule to include this word, and that is the rule about forming possessives. Usually we do this by adding an apostrophe and an “s,” as you no doubt well know. But with the words “it’s” and “its,” we choose to reserve the apostrophe for the contraction, and that leaves the possessive hanging out there, alone and forlorn and apostropheless.

In this, however, we’re following another rule (are you still with me? or have I already bored you to tears?), that of the possessive personal pronoun: hers, his, theirs, ours, yours, for example. All lack apostrophes. But they’re not confusing, somehow—perhaps because, unlike “its,” they clearly refer to people, and are never given an apostrophe because they never become contractions.

Now, aren’t you glad I cleared that up? But I bet it won’t stop me from making the same mistake again—and again and again.

When I thought as a child

The New Neo Posted on by

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. —1 Corinthians 13:11

Children have a lot of time on their hands. In my case, there was a fair amount of solitary time, and I filled it with musings and experiments.

For example, there was lying-down-on-the-grass-and-looking-up-at-the-sky, great for studying floaters and musing on what they might be. Insects trapped in the eye? Single-celled creatures, likewise (close, but no cigar)?

And then there was the eating of dirt, an activity I tried only a few times before I abandoned it as unsatisfactory. But I still remember the taste—gritty and complex. Likewise, sucking on a wet washcloth during down time in the bath, an interesting combination of rough and refreshing.

Shining a flashlight on the fingers to see the red glow was rather nice. Lying in bed at night, waiting for sleep to overtake me, an entertaining feature was to press gently on my eyes with my fists and rub, causing the activation of phosphenes and a bit of a light show (the Greeks had described the phenomenon long before my time, but I was unaware of that and thought I’d invented the activity on my own).

Then there was the repetition of a familiar word until it became strange. This was accomplished by simply saying it aloud over and over to the point where it was leached of its original meaning and devolved to a mere sound. I recall this happening most effectively and dramatically with the word “pink,” but others will do quite nicely.

Many of these explorations took place in my yard, which had some dirt patches where grass stuggled to grow, and in the summer anthills were plentiful there. These were opportunities for some very mild ant torture that involved covering an ant with a bit of fine light sand and watching it emerge after a very short struggle, now temporarily and somehow satisfyingly light-colored rather than dark (did that make me both a budding racist and a PETA offender? Mea culpa!)

Our block—a dead-end street—featured areas that had been patched over with tar, and on hot days these bubbled up in splendid fashion. There was a plentiful supply of rocks in the gutters, the pointiest of which could be used to strike the tar bubbles and cause a pleasant pop, similar but not quite as good as the scented zap! of that same rock used on the dots that lined the paper rolls we otherwise would load into our cap guns as ammunition.

I wonder whether children still have the time and inclination to do these things. If they do, they’re not telling the adults. Nor did we—till now.

Shirley Sherrod’s ill-fitting suit

The New Neo Posted on by

Shirley Sherrod has now announced her intention of suing Andrew Breitbart for posting the edited video of her speech to the NAACP that caused so much commotion.

I’ve looked at a number of articles about the lawsuit, but none have stated what the charges would be. I’m assuming defamation, but if so I can’t see that she’s got much of a case at all—unless, of course, the court turns itself inside out trying to please her. If cutting off a video and not showing the whole speech and putting it online is now considered defamation, it would be the end of the news business and most of the liberal press.

As for her job loss, that would be something for her to sue the Obama administration about. But don’t hold your breath waiting to see that happen.

[NOTE: Here’s Andrew Breitbart’s original post on Sherrod. If you read the text, you’ll see that what he describes is actually exactly what happened on the tape:

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.]

Injuction on Arizona immigration law

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m puzzled by headlines such as one at memeorandum, that reads “Arizona immigration law: Key parts struck down by judge.” In fact, however, the article in question describes the judge ordering a temporary injunction pending further court rulings on the matter.

I believe that this case is almost inevitably destined for the Supreme Court anyway. Till then there will be a series of rulings. This one merely suspends some of the more controversial aspects of the law until courts rule further on the merits.

How are Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice doing these days?

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember this movie, all you older folk like me? Bet you do, if only vaguely; this was the suggestive photo that appeared in the promos:

bob-and-carol-and-ted-and-alice-cd-cover-37727.jpg

Something made me think of the movie the other day, and I became curious enough about how the film—that quintessential artifact of the encounter movement of the 60s—has held up over these well-nigh forty years since its 1969 release to order it from Netflix and watch it, which I did last night.

Those of you who didn’t live through those times would probably find the film silly indeed, and rather boring at that. But it held my interest, in no small part due to its role in reminding me of those transformative and ultimately ridiculous and even destructive times.

The film’s message is essentially conservative; it especially mocks protagonists Bob and Carol (Robert Culp and Natalie Wood), who go to a weekend at an Esalen-like “Institute” and end up thinking they should jettison the rules of sexual monogamy while practicing an endlessly-disclosing and incredibly self-centered “honesty” about their feelings at all times. Their more traditional friends, Ted and Alice (Elliot Gould and Dyan Cannon, who are especially good in this movie) have some—err—problems with the idea. Although both couples eventually succumb to experimentation, the supposed come-on of the orgy scene in the photo above is tempered by their realization that monogamy has its charms, after all.

Other tangential observations are: (1) as you can see from the photo, the now-ubiquitous chest-hair removal for men that I commented on here had fortunately not yet begun; (2) the movie is worth watching if only for the fashions; (3) Natalie Wood was very beautiful; (4) the female stars are every bit as thin as stars today; and (5) there are a few very funny scenes, including one between Gould and Cannon in bed.

The movie is a caricature, of course. But it reminded me of some of the stupidest ideas of the 60s that have mercifully disappeared for the most part: love beads for men (sported prominently by Culp’s character), the conviction that full disclosure of thoughts/feelings is a plus, and lengthy weekend sessions featuring all-night encounter groups.

Gaia and the oil spill

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems the earth’s waters have a powerful capacity to repair themselves:

Scientists said the rapid dissipation of the [Gulf spill] surface oil was probably due to a combination of factors. The gulf has an immense natural capacity to break down oil, which leaks into it at a steady rate from thousands of natural seeps. Though none of the seeps is anywhere near the size of the Deepwater Horizon leak, they do mean that the gulf is swarming with bacteria that can eat oil.

So even the Times admits that oil in the Gulf is an ongoing and naturally-generated problem, and that the body of water seems to contain naturally-occurring ways of dealing with it.

About that Massachusetts law re the electoral college

The New Neo Posted on by

Those people who point out that the new Massachusetts law—awarding the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the largest number of popular votes—would undercut the state’s overwhelmingly liberal voters in the event of a Republican being ahead, are technically correct but are missing a very important point. The law is written so that it only takes effect if enough other states pass similar legislation to constitute a majority of the electoral votes.

This would effectively nullify the workings of the electoral college and allow the POTUS to be elected by popular vote only, effecting a further erosion of the original republican (small “r”) intent of the founding fathers (an earlier example would be the 17th amendment).

The new Massachusetts law is actually rather fiendishly clever, showing the mindset of liberals and the left towards the constitution. Any way to get around it is fair game, and this is a rather creative one. It would increase the left’s electoral power significantly.

What are Democrats planning?

The New Neo Posted on by

There are no plans to push unpopular bills through in a lame duck session, no plans at all, says Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

Who’s he? An assistant to Speaker Pelosi. Do you trust him to be telling the truth—or to even know the truth? I don’t.

Oh, and Harry Reid’s got some plans, too—to reinstate what used to be called the “nuclear option.” I discussed Reid’s plans previously here, back during the HCR-passage days:

…Harry Reid announced that… he approves of a plan to abolish the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the beginning of the next session of Congress. Chuck Schumer of NY says they’re going to start talking about it in a couple of weeks.

This would refer to the so-called “nuclear option,” a technique by which the need to have a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules (such as the filibuster) could supposedly be overcome at the beginning of a new session of Congress by a simple majority vote. The argument goes this way:

“…[O]n the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well.”

The strategy became well-known (but was not actually used) when Newt Gingrich threatened to employ it to overcome Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial appointments (and these Democratic filibusters themselves were a break with Senate tradition; routine judicial appointments previously had usually been given the courtesy of an up-down vote). The Democrats, of course, opposed the nuclear option mightily at the time, although now they would be attempting to use it for far larger and more transformative (and more unpopular) matters than mere judicial appointments.

The opposing party can do a number of things after a nuclear option that would threaten to shut down the Senate; I believe that’s one of the reasons it’s called “nuclear.” But the most important point for our purposes today is that this sort of thing makes it even more vital that the election of 2010 not only result in Republican control of the House, but accomplish the much more difficult task of taking control of the Senate too…

Because Senators are only up for re-election every six years, only a third of the Senate will run for office in 2010 (unless a few more resign), and only eighteen of these are Democrats (see a list here).

So the Republicans would have to retain every seat they hold and gain ten of the current Democrat seats in order to take control.

My current prediction, however, is that if the House changes hands in the election of 2010 and comes under Republican control, even if the Senate doesn’t, there would be little point in Reid (or whoever is in charge of the Senate if Reid loses his bid for re-election) employing this approach, because it would be so hard to get the legislation they want passed in the House. This is why it is so vitally important for the Republicans to gain control of at least one legislative body come the session that begins in January of 2011.

Two would be far better, of course. But the House matters a great deal, because we still have a bicameral system of government in which bills must be approved by both bodies to become law.

[ADDENDUM: Ezra Klein elaborates.]

The “does it make me look fat?” question

The New Neo Posted on by

Quite a few people responded to my observation at the end of this post about “the admitted double-bind of that ancient question: ‘does this outfit make me look fat?'”

So I thought I’d expand (pun intended) a bit on that thought. Since I already have noted that the question is a double-bind, here’s the definition of that very useful term:

1. A psychological impasse created when contradictory demands are made of an individual, such as a child or an employee, so that no matter which directive is followed, the response will be construed as incorrect.

2. A situation in which a person must choose between equally unsatisfactory alternatives; a punishing and inescapable dilemma.

Meaning, of course, that the poor guy can’t win no matter what he says.

“Yes” is a widely recognized no-no, although the interests of honesty sometimes dictate it. Other seemingly safer responses such as “No, it doesn’t make you look fat,” open him up to the plaint, “So you think that some things do make me look fat?”, whereas a careful and cagey “I’m not sure” is asking for trouble of the “You just don’t notice or care anything about me!” variety.

“You always look good in everything” sounds good, but it smacks of flattering and untruthful copout. Perhaps the best response might be a simple “You look great in that” if it’s a thumbs-up, or “I think something else might be even better” if not.

But the entire exchange is fraught with peril and minefields, and if the woman knows what’s conducive to the health of the relationship, she won’t ask the question in the first place, but will save it for her female friends instead. The same is true of the equally dangerous, “Do I look like I lost weight?”

I once chuckled at a cartoon in the New Yorker that I wish I could find online, but I can’t seem to locate it at the moment. It featured a woman posing in her underwear, asking an onlooking man (presumably her hapless boyfriend or husband), “Does my body make me look fat?”

[NOTE: A related issue is whether women are more tolerant of significant overweight in their men than men are in their women. I must confess that in general, it’s been my observation that women tend to be less focused on the looks of their men than men are on the looks of their women, although there are so many exceptions to that rule as to make it virtually meaningless. In particular, I’ve noticed that happily married couples take the physical changes that inevitably occur over time (weight gain in some, shriveling in others; wrinkles; sagging; and all that goes with the aging process) in stride, and accept them as the natural consequences of living. Others, less happy, hold the spouse to some impossible standard, and/or replace the old model with a newer shinier one.

And a French study indicates that, at least in France:

Obese women were 30 percent less likely than “normal” women to have had sex in the last year, but obese men were just as likely to have had one sexual partner in the last 12 months as average guys. Professor Kaye Wellings, one of the authors of the study, summed it up pretty effectively by saying, “Maybe women are more tolerant of tubby husbands than men are of tubby wives.”

Your mileage may differ.]

[ADDENDUM: I have kindly been provided with the cartoon, and here it is (hat tip: Baklava):

lookfat.jpg

[ADDENDUM II: In case you haven’t seen it, here’s Honest Abe dealing with the dilemma (hat tip: commenter “Ernie G.”):

[ADDENDUM III: Commenter “mousebert” has kindly created the following creative compendium: