Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

Everyone knows that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce. Right?

Check out this analysis from the Freakonomics Blog.

It’s actually more like 1 in 3. Not sure what my point is in posting this, just liked the analyis.

Sidebar: While the Chicago School of Economics annoys me to no end on the ideological front, (Note to Milton - uhh that whole I.M.F. & World Bank thing didn’t work out so well) one has to admire their dedication to slicing the numbers all the way down to the bone. Also, I dig the idea that basic economic theories can be applied to almost anything.

 

The Costs of Marriage

I plan to do more research on this, but this is interesting

Beginning next week, Illinois counties will begin collecting an extra $5 from those seeking marriage licenses. The money will be used to pay for legal counseling and services aimed at the state’s growing number of domestic violence cases.

more

 

When you’re right, you’re right: against marriage and motherhood.

Found this 12-year-old but still entirely relevant essay by Claudia Card, Against Marriage and Motherhood. You should read it, because a) she’s a lesbian, and she’s anti-marriage - gay and straight, so in case you thought we were bigots, think again, and b) she’s just right.

I really tired, so I haven’t delved into the motherhood bit yet, but some great quotes from the first portion of the piece:

About same-sex marriage I feel something like the way I feel about prostitution. Let us, by all means, decriminalize sodomy and so forth. Although marriage rights would be sufficient to enable lovers to have sex legally, such rights should not be necessary for that purpose. Where they are legally necessary and also available for protection against the social oppression of same-sex lovers, as for lovers of different races, there will be enormous pressure to marry. Let us not pretend that marriage is basically a good thing on the ground that durable intimate relationships are. Let us not be eager to have the State regulate our unions. Let us work to remove barriers to our enjoying some of the privileges presently available only to heterosexual married couples. But in doing so, we should also be careful not to support discrimination against those who choose not to marry and not to support continued state definition of the legitimacy of intimate relationships. I would rather see the state deregulate heterosexual marriage than see it begin to regulate same-sex marriage.

And:

Among the trappings of marriage that have received attention and become controversial, ceremonies and rituals are much discussed. I have no firm opinions about ceremonies or rituals. A far more important issue seems to me to be the marriage license, which receives hardly any attention at all. Ceremonies affirming a relationship can take place at any point in the relationship. But a license is what one needs to initiate a legal marriage. To marry legally, one applies to the state for a license, and marriage, once entered into, licenses spouses to certain kinds of access to each other’s persons and lives. It is a mistake to think of a license as simply enhancing everyone’s freedom. One person’s license, in this case, can be another’s prison. Prerequisites for marriage licenses are astonishingly lax. Anyone of a certain age, not presently married to someone else, and free of certain communicable diseases automatically qualifies. A criminal record for violent crimes is, to my knowledge, no bar. Compare this with other licenses, such as a driver’s license. In Wisconsin, to retain a driver’s license, we submit periodically to eye exams. Some states have more stringent requirements. To obtain a driver’s license, all drivers have to pass a written and a behind-the-wheel test to demonstrate knowledge and skill. In Madison, Wisconsin, even to adopt a cat from the humane society, we have to fill out a form demonstrating knowledge of relevant ordinances for pet-guardians. Yet to marry, applicants need demonstrate no knowledge of the laws pertaining to marriage nor any relationship skills nor even the modicum of self-control required to respect another human being. And once the marriage exists, the burden of proof is always on those who would dissolve it, never on those who would continue it in perpetuity.

[Note: Bold text styling is my own.]

 

Judicial activism and the law of unintended consequences

Meaganoff raises an interesting point in her previous post about marriage. To put it succinctly, should the courts overturn laws that are unjust even if the majority of the voters support such a law?

This question has bothered me for some time. As a good liberal (recent praise for Bush notwithstanding) my knee-jerk (pun intended) reaction is “YES! The courts have a sacred duty to protect all and who cares if the unwashed masses are racist, sexist, stupid, whatever.”

As I’ve thought about this more, I’ve had trouble with the question. To wit; if people (racist, sexist, stupid or otherwise) feel the court is usurping it’s position, they cease to respect the court and vote with their feet. Then whatever good intentions the court had are undone by the aforementioned people, racist, sexist, stupid or otherwise.

An example; the desegregation battle. The 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topekaended what is known as de jure segregation. I.E. segregation that is mandated by law. Nowadays this case is praised as an important step forward in race relations in this country. This is an opinion that I share.

What do you know? It’s another area of agreement between me and George Bush. Pigs are flying!

Where problems started to happen is in the implementation of the Brown ruling. Brown merely struck down segregation as a matter of law. Many districts simply took the offending rules off the books and went along with segregated schools. As the cases started to pile up, courts started mandating integration. In 1968, the Supreme Court weighed in and ruled that freedom of choice plans were no longer acceptable for integration. (See Green v. County School Board)

This brings us to forced busing, which shows up in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. In this case, Charlotte school district proposed a system of busing students to integrate the schools. The Supreme Court said, “Yup, OK, this plan meets our requirements for integration.”

And from there forced busing was the integration method of choice. And forced busing made white flight way more popular. Were these people racists? Sure. But ultimately, all of this judicial activism did nothing. In many urban areas schools are as segregated as ever. White people pulled their kids out of public schools, or moved further away from the city. Nowadays, (in the ‘add insult to injury’ file) these same white people are pushing for the government to pick up the tab for these “schools of choice”.

My point in all of this, while intentions on the part of the court were good, basically it was sound and fury signifying nothing. People still held their racist beliefs and merely sidestepped what they saw as the court usurping their rights.

Judicial fiat can not overcome people’s attitudes and beliefs in one fell swoop. It takes time. I am concerned that an over-reliance on the courts will lead to a hardening of negative attitudes and stereotypes.

 

My kind of traffic jam

A truckload of Oreo cookies snarls traffic south of Chicago.

Mmmm…..traffic jam….

 

I’ll no more on’t; it hath made me mad - an addendum.

In a discussion while driving to have some delicious sushi, I told TeemKuntz that railing against gay marriage (in that it is a type of marriage at all, not as a homophobe) is a waste of energy. Sure, it’s irksome to see so much time and energy spent on fighting for something so undesirable.

But our guest commenter, Joz76, on TK’s last post on gay marriage versus same sex unions had a valid point: in the real world, marriage and civil unions do NOT offer the same rights and protections. So if getting those left-out rights is important to them, well, then I say let them go for it.

However, completely unrelated to anyone’s feelings about gays or about marriage, think of how this affects voter’s rights. I don’t generally quote pastors of Evangelical churches in Georgia as food for thought (I am a little queasy even saying that) but Byron at The No Kool-Aid Zone has an interesting point:

The California Supreme Court usurped authority not inherent in its constitutional powers, and stripped every single Californian of his/her rights to vote in a meaningful way. Why? Because California voters had already rejected “gay marriage” by an overwhelming margin, in a legal, statewide referendum.

I can honestly say I had never thought of it that way.

Is it true that they could vote to ban gay marriage again? Sure. But why the back lash from the Supreme Court? Why do something that (again, paraphrasing Byron - yeesh) is “morally right and legally wrong” in the meantime? I don’t know enough about the nitty gritty, specific limits of sep of powers, but it seems strange to me.

Additionally, I find this whole post somewhat hypocritical on my part as I am going to a Bachellorette party tonight, and a wedding (accompanied by TK) next week.

…I’m hoping the lapdances I get later will wash this icky Georgian pastor feeling off of me….

 

In defense of appeasement

Bush’s recent comments are beyond the pale.  I’m glad to see Obama swing right back at him. He’s going to have to hit back when the right wing hits him. John Kerry taught us that you can’t rise above the smear machine.

The purpose of today’s post; few historical events are as poorly understood as Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. Nowadays it passes for a kind of shorthand - say ”peace in our time” and you get images of hand-wringing liberals and French surrender-monkeys.

You have to put the policy of appeasement in a historical context. In the 1930’s the western powers viewed the Soviet Union as a threat. Some of them even view them as a greater threat than Nazi Germany. The world was in the throes of the Great Depression and western nations feared uprisings like the Bolshevik revolution. By sanctioning Hitler’s move east, Chamberlain hoped to draw Germany and the Soviet Union into a mutually destructive war.

Secondly; western military power was absolutely non-existent. People seem to assume that Hitler could have been stopped at Munich. There was no power in the west to stop him. It wasn’t until the Normandy invasion in 1944 that the Allies were able to open up a real western front. For those of you who struggle with the math, that was five years after Hitler invaded Poland.

Chamberlain had hoped that appeasement and pushing Hitler east would give France and Britain time to re-arm, and hopefully, draw the United States into the conflict.

What he didn’t count on was the German military tactics of Blitzkrieg.

Remember, World War I had degraded into trench warfare and the front lines hardly moved at all during the conflict. No one at the time understood what the Panzer divisions were capable of. Even after watching the invasion of Poland, both France and the Soviet Union were initially crushed by Blitzkrieg tactics. It was a brand-new method of war.

Appeasement wasn’t a bad choice, it was the only one available at the time.

 

I say there shall be no more marriages

Well, it happened, a  mostly-Republican-appointed Supreme Court overturned California’s same sex marriage ban.

I think it’s opposite day again…but that’s neither here nor there. I’ve expressed my intense opposition to the legal recognition of marriage of any kind, and I don’t really want to jump into that pool again, but I’ve got a few questions to the world at large:

One caveat (and people, please read the damn caveat before you start spouting off)

Caveat: I am not opposed to equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. I am not a neanderthal homophobe. I am opposed to the legal recognition of marriage for any couple whatsoever. I have expressed my reasons before, read my previous posts on the matter before you accuse me of…whatever you’re going to accuse me of…

The questions:

1) Why does anyone need sanction from the government to be together? My relationships do not need to be legitimized by a government…umm, why do yours?

2) What is the evidence that marriage is actually any good for society? Provide examples please, because after watching 3 colleagues go through divorce. I don’t buy it for a goddamn minute. The ball’s in your court, you assert it’s good for society, you back it up.

3) Finally, quoting the Stephen Sondheim musical Company, What do you get for it? Congratulations! You can now get married! So what?

Please, whatever you do, don’t give me the commitment line. Commitment is a complete fallacy. People change. The reasons you love someone may cease to exist. Unconditional love does not exist and should not exist. We love for reasons. If you don’t, why love at all?

Would you really want to be loved for no reason? Think about it.

 

Bush is still right

Bipartisanship is alive and well…..at least for the farmers.

The 81-to-15 Senate vote, like the 318-to-106 House vote on Wednesday, attracted broad bipartisan support and received far more than the two-thirds that would be needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto, should he keep his pledge to wield his pen.

rest here

 

Winning by default

The Dems have picked up another traditional G.O.P. seat. This makes the third one in a couple of weeks. Many pundits are seeing this as a leading indicator for a Democratic landslide in November. I tend to agree. Now that Obama is running against Grandpa McCain instead of Hillary, I think the voters are going to come around. Grandpa doesn’t have a whole lot to offer the electorate. He wants to continue the failed policies of Bush in Iraq, he still can’t tell the difference between the Shi’a and the Sunni, and is still preaching ’small government-free market’ policies that have driven this country into the ditch.

In addition, the evangelicals are splitting and the G.O.P. base isn’t really interested in McCain.

Listen up, Dems. You don’t have to win in November, all you have to do is not lose. There is a major strategic difference between those two. What do I mean by ‘not lose’? OK, a few helpful suggestions

1) Fire everybody who worked on Gore’s campaign and Kerry’s campaign. Don’t let them within 100 miles of Obama. Seriously, these are the people who told Gore to wear khakis to improve his image. This is not what we need.

2) Remember the old Clinton mantra: “It’s the economy, stupid”. This is your ticket to victory. I have a very hard time believing that voters in Mississippi just forgot about God, Guns & Gays and joined the ACLU and the Sierra Club. I’m sure God, Guns & Gays are still important, but now it’s Fuel, Food and Falling Home Prices.

3) Obama, please don’t pander. Please don’t offer a silver bullet for everything. Admit these are difficult problems, explain your plan clearly and listen to what the voters are telling you. I believe this country is ready for a leader. An actual FDR-style leader. FDR never claimed to have all the answers. He said, very simply, we’ve got problems and we’re gonna try to fix ‘em like this, and if that don’t work we’re gonna try something else, but we’re not going to stop trying to fix ‘em.

4) Take a page out of JFK’s book. Don’t be ashamed to ask people to serve their country, not just in the military, but in other ways. Ask them to conserve, ask them to change some habits to save our planet. Don’t tell them to go fucking shopping after a disaster. We are all in this together. Don’t be afraid to say that.

This campaign should be a piece of cake. It really should. If the Dems mess this one up…there is no hope for the party.