Sexual Harassment Is Whatever Sneering Feminists Say It Is
Via Twitchy, Amanda Marcotte tweet:
@AmandaMarcotte http://gawker.com/high-school-student-suspended-for-asking-miss-america-t-1565510180 ... I really wish people would stop acting like it's cute when teenage boys sexually harass older women.
Yes, now normal male behavior, for millions of years of human history -- pursuing women -- has been deemed sexual harassment.
What do we expect males to do, sit cross-legged and wish really hard a woman will fall through the ceiling into their laps?
The Working Rich Now Have Less Leisure Than The Poor
Interesting piece in The Economist, noting that it's the rich who now don't have so many breaks from their work time. (Of course, they are more able to choose to take them if they want.) The piece gives a number of reasons, but here's an excerpt I found interesting:
The status of work and leisure in the rich world has changed since the days of "Downton Abbey". Back in 1899 Thorstein Veblen, an American economist who dabbled in sociology, offered his take on things. He argued that leisure was a "badge of honour". Rich people could get others to do the dirty, repetitive work--what Veblen called "industry". Yet Veblen's leisure class was not idle. Rather they engaged in "exploit": challenging and creative activities such as writing, philanthropy and debating.
Veblen's theory needs updating, according to a recent paper from researchers at Oxford University*. Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy "exploit" at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off. On the flip side, leisure is no longer a sign of social power. Instead it symbolises uselessness and unemployment.
The evidence backs up the sociological theory. The occupations in which people are least happy are manual and service jobs requiring little skill. Job satisfaction tends to increase with the prestige of the occupation. Research by Arlie Russell Hochschild of the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that as work becomes more intellectually stimulating, people start to enjoy it more than home life. "I come to work to relax," one interviewee tells Ms Hochschild. And wealthy people often feel that lingering at home is a waste of time. A study in 2006 revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less "passive leisure" (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000.
Personally, I find that I am the most productive when I have a ton on my plate.
Linkie with a pudding cup without the pudding. (School lunch these days.)
The Power-Mad Morons Running The Academy
Excellent column in USA Today by law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds about the tiny little power barons running colleges these days:
Full-time administrators now outnumber full-time faculty. And when times get tough, schools have a disturbing tendency to shrink faculty numbers while keeping administrators on the payroll. Teaching gets done by low-paid, nontenured adjuncts, but nobody ever heard of an "adjunct administrator."
But it's not just the fat that is worrisome. It's administrators' obsession with -- and all too often, abuse of -- security that raises serious concerns. At the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Clyde W. Barrow, a leading professor, has just quit, complaining of an administration that isolates itself from students and faculty behind keypads and security doors.
Isolation is bad. But worse still is the growing tendency of administrators to stifle critics by shamelessly interpreting even obviously harmless statements as "threats." A recent example took place at Bergen Community College, where Professor Francis Schmidt was suspended, and ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination over a "threat" that consisted of posting a picture of his 9-year old daughter wearing a Game Of Thrones T-shirt. The shirt bore a quote from the show, reading: "I will take what is mine with fire & blood." Bergen administrator Jim Miller apparently thought the picture, which was posted to Schmidt's Google Plus account, was somehow intended as a threat to him. (Schmidt had filed a labor grievance a couple of months earlier.)
What kind of person claims that a picture of a 9-year-old girl wearing an HBO T-shirt is a threat? The kind of person who runs America's colleges, apparently. And Miller, alas, is not alone in his cluelessness and, apparently, paranoia.
...With college enrollment falling and budgets under pressure, legislatures, donors and alumni will be looking at ways to restructure schools in the future. The profusion of self-important deanlets and the abuse of campus police forces ought to be looked at as part of this process. It's just another symptom of the now-imploding higher education bubble.
Reynolds' book on remaking higher ed -- The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.
Repealing The Drinking Age Is Long Overdue
Camille Paglia in TIME writes that the age 21 rule for drinking sets the US apart from other advanced Western nations and pushes kids toward mind-deadening drugs and binge-drinking -- and she's right. An excerpt:
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts, and serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant. The age 21 rule sets the United States apart from all advanced Western nations and lumps it with small or repressive countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
Congress was stampeded into this puritanical law by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who with all good intentions were wrongly intruding into an area of personal choice exactly as did the hymn-singing 19th-century Temperance crusaders, typified by Carrie Nation smashing beer barrels with her hatchet. Temperance fanaticism eventually triumphed and gave us 14 years of Prohibition. That in turn spawned the crime syndicates for booze smuggling, laying the groundwork for today's global drug trade. Thanks a lot, Carrie!
What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat, and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut off from the adult world.
I agree with her -- as she puts it about the in loco parenting by the government: "This tyrannical infantilizing of young Americans must stop!"
I Want This Budget Air-Conditioner!
I live close enough to the ocean -- about a mile away -- that I don't need AC more than a few days a year. I generally just tough it out on those days, but it seems there's no need.
Radley Balko Asks The Right Questions About The Police Response To The Boston Bombing
The second one also applies to the rights-violating TSA. Balko in the WaPo:
Were the heavy-handed door-to-door searches and lockdown in Watertown justified by the belief that Tsarnaev was holed up in that particular neighborhood?
...Might a better approach be to merely accept that exercising the freedoms we cherish requires accepting a certain amount of risk?
I made a similar point in my op-ed about the TSA -- that we are in greater danger by removing our civil liberties in the name of "security" (and the fantasy that we can be "secure").
A linkie that had too much to drinkie last night.
Sweat For Less!
Up to 50% off ladies activewear, including sports bras, at Amazon.
Some Of My Neighbors Have Flippers
Two of my neighbors met up on the beach. Mari Snyder is the one in clothes.
The Incredible Rudeness Of Being Cheap
Wonderful piece by a writer I've been a fan of since my days back in New York, Joe Queenan, on cheapness. Per the question he poses in the headline -- "Cheapskates: Misguided Thrift or Character Flaw?" -- yes I believe it is a character flaw: one that may be prompted by fear (which is no excuse for not overcoming it). An excerpt from Queenan's piece at The Rotarian:
Several things about cheap people baffle me. One, do they think they are getting away with it? Do they think the rest of us don't notice that they're always in the bathroom when the check arrives? And what do they hope to gain from this? Are they keeping a running tab of how much money they save over the course of a lifetime? Were the proceeds from all those un-tipped waiters and shortchanged friends enough to buy a Barcalounger? A trip to Myrtle Beach? If you add up all the money that cheapskates save by stiffing friends over a 70-year period, it works out to $456.78. Yes, I have run the numbers.
Cheapness in the modern world may well be a product of the ʼ60s, when people developed the idea of "sticking it to the man." This mindset manifests itself in such baleful activities as lying about being a senior to get cheaper movie tickets or asking your neighbor if you can illegally share his cable feed.
I view cheapness as a deal breaker vis-à-vis friendships. I do not want to be around cheapskates. Their behavior introduces a level of suspense into each and every outing, in which I spend the whole time wondering whether I am going to get stiffed. I dread that awkward moment when the check arrives and I wonder if my friend is going to feign a coronary, or say that he forgot his wallet, or simply fail to pony up for his portion of the tip. Of course, all this could be avoided by asking for separate checks. But "separate checks" are the two most disgusting words in the English language. They are. They suggest that you have already decided that you are not going to treat the other party to a free meal, that you have made a preemptive decision not to be generous. Or that you already fear you are going to get stiffed.
...But what I most hate about cheapskates is the disappointment I feel in their presence. Cheap people make me sad. When people who borrowed a bottle of classy, expensive wine replace it with swill, my heart breaks. It makes me sad that there are people so lacking in basic human decency. It means they are not really one of us.
...To me, cheapness is a sign of a much deeper problem, a poverty of spirit that I find appalling. Cheapness is a reflection of a deeper character flaw. It is a form of theft. A person who would stiff you on a bar bill would probably turn you over to the secret police too.
Your Plate Isn't Dirty
Marty Nemko blogs at Psychology Today about the notion pushed on a lot of us that it is virtuous to "clean" your plate. I like the way trappleton put it at Lifehacker, where I saw this, that we "stop looking at our plates as challenges to be overcome."
6. Do you suffer from the "finish your plate" syndrome? I will finish what's on my plate even when I'm quite full. That's not because my mother told me "People are starving in Africa." It's unconsciously because I think of finishing my plate as a task to be completed, and I don't like to keep tasks uncompleted. Also, I don't like to waste things. Both reasonings are stupid. For example, it's better that those extra 500 calories get saved for the next meal or even thrown out than to make myself fatter. But that irrational thinking is alive and well within me and perhaps you.
Possible solution: Perhaps you and I can quell that tendency by staying aware of it.
The guy apparently is rather clueless about dietary science, per his first point about fat, but this point above, about the idiocy of cleaning one's plate, is an important one to make.
I was raised this way, and I used to try to do that -- and feel overly full and sick afterward. I learned to figure out whether I was still hungry and stop eating if I was. This meant, on Saturday, when Gregg brought over In 'N' Out burgers, I left one tiny morsel on my plate, which I had to cover and put in the refrigerator. Better than stuffing myself and feeling like crap -- and having unnecessary food and calories.
Hermosa Beach Mom Beats Power-Mad TSA Thugs In Court
Brian Summers writes for The Daily Breeze about the tentative legal settlement Stacy Armato won for being imprisoned in a glass booth by TSA thugs four years ago over not wanting them to irradiate the breast milk she'd pumped for her son:
Stacey Armato sued in federal court in Phoenix after a 2010 incident in which she asked the TSA to provide an alternate form of screening that would not expose her 7-month-old son's breast milk to radiation. During the incident, Armato claimed in court papers, she was forced to wait in a glass enclosure for more than 40 minutes while she was "frequently harassed and abused by the TSA agents."
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which should become official within the next month, the TSA will take steps to retrain its officers on proper breast milk-screening procedures, Armato said. The agency also will pay her $75,000, which she plans to use for her legal fees and to donate to BreastfeedLA, a group dedicated to promoting breast-feeding across the region.
"Moms can now travel more confidently with their breast milk," Armato said. "It's a big day for breast-feeding moms."
And still yet another small day for our overall civil liberties, thanks to how pitifully few ever complain about the rights-violating indignities that the mall food court clerks repurposed into "security" jobs for the TSA perpetrate on all of us.
UPDATE: My wonderfully dedicated colleague at TSA News Blog, Lisa Simeone, has done a terrific post on this, with original reporting, which I'll post here. (Mosier is Amato's lawyer.)
*UPDATE: Rob Mosier just told me that this fight was made all the harder because it was only him and Stacey against multiple other lawyers all working for or hired by the TSA: "the U.S. Attorney, agency [TSA] counsel from DC, plus 4 other law firms, so at every deposition, every hearing, we were facing 7 or 8 other attorneys; every hour spent on this case cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per hour." In addition, Mosier was the only one from his law firm allowed to view any of the relevant documents -- he couldn't get help, in other words, from his colleagues -- because everything was deemed SSI. As for the names of the TSA agents who harassed Armato, Mosier and Armato know those names but acceded to a confidentiality agreement not to release them, because four years ago, in the days after her video went viral, so many negative comments were posted all over the place, threatening to harm the TSA agents. And the conveniently missing portion of that video? The TSA claims it doesn't know what happened to it. Though they requested it repeatedly, neither Mosier nor Armato has seen it.
With suicide doors.
Disgusting: Video Proof The TSA Is Still Groping Children
Teach your kids that there's "bad touch" -- except when a police-costumed government thug is doing it.
Lisa Simeone writes at TSA News Blog:
The TSA has been saying for years now that they don't give "enhanced pat-downs" to children. Even though we have loads of evidence -- verbal and visual -- to the contrary, the agency and its mouthpieces continue to spout these lies. Here's yet more proof.
Simeone continues with a question for parents:
How can you allow this to be done to your children?? How can you allow strangers to touch them and rub their hands all over their bodies??
...This video is infuriating not only for the simple fact that it exists, but because the TSA agents are being all nicey-nicey and jokey with the children as they're pawing them. This is what sexual predators do. This is mimicking that behavior. I don't care what you think of the TSA and its policies, the fact is that this is mimicking the behavior of sexual predators. It's called grooming.
"Let Them Drink Chocolate"
Mark Oppenheimer writes for The New York Times about stupidity in the name of dietary health for children:
When the district took away chocolate milk, it substituted skim milk. (The district already offered 1 percent milk.) If the goal was, as the researchers suggested, to make white milk more "attractive," why didn't they consider offering whole milk, the tastiest, most satisfying white milk, rather than the watery stuff that I, for one, can't go near?
The answer, surely, is that the milk study wasn't just about milk. It was about virtue. To the anti-chocolate mind-set, whole milk is still too decadent. It's creamy, fatty, enjoyable. Even if it's healthier than chocolate milk, it's still too sinful.
I do think government should take obesity seriously and try to nudge people toward healthier behavior. Our farm bills should not favor corn, and thus cheap corn syrup. We should build bicycle lanes, not more highway lanes. And we should ensure that all Americans, even those without cars, have access to markets with affordable fruits and vegetables.
But food is in its own category, and we don't want to be too puritanical about it. For one thing, while we all know that, say, exercise is good, the conventional wisdom is always changing on which foods are bad. Some research has indicated, for example, that drinking whole milk is associated with being thinner. And as the Cornell team was forced to conclude, hooking children with a temptation like chocolate milk ups their overall milk consumption, as well as the likelihood that they'll take the healthy school lunch. In all sorts of ways, then, skim milk may be bad for the student body's nutrition.
But more important, sweets, unlike commuter miles in an S.U.V., are necessary to the good life. We wisely use sweets to celebrate milestones. Sweets help make family rituals: My father believed that one was remiss not to drink Coca-Cola with our Friday-night pizza. And, as I am reminded this week, foods sanctify religious occasions. Right now, my family's special collision of vegetarianism and Judaism necessitates a good bit of chocolate. But when Passover ends, that doesn't mean we should put the chocolate cake, or the chocolate milk, away.
I don't eat starchy carbs -- no sugar, flour, rice, potatoes, bananas or any fruit -- but I eat either a small chocolate bar or a scoop of gelato once a week. Without that I'd feel deprived.
As a kid, my mother worked the deprivation strategy. What it turned me into was a kid who'd dive into raw sewage after an m&m. (Wipe it off with a Kleenex and it's good as new!)
A healthy diet is a good thing -- filled with a lot of fat and nutrients (for example, whole milk, which is actually the most nutritious kind, and chocolate milk from time to time). A Puritan diet is not a healthy thing, because it causes you to always feel like you're missing something -- leading to your sticking your face in a giant Oreo bag and never coming out.
Where's Shop Class?
Josh Mandel writes in the WSJ that he found welders making $150K a year:
In American high schools, it is becoming increasingly hard to defend the vanishing of shop class from the curriculum. The trend began in the 1970s, when it became conventional wisdom that a four-year college degree was essential. As Forbes magazine reported in 2012, 90% of shop classes have been eliminated for the Los Angeles unified school district's 660,000 students. Yet a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics study shows that 48% of all college graduates are working in jobs that don't require a four-year degree.
Too many young people have four-year liberal-arts degrees, are thousands of dollars in debt and find themselves serving coffee at Starbucks SBUX +0.47% or working part-time at the mall. Many of them would have been better off with a two-year skilled-trade or technical education that provides the skills to secure a well-paying job.
A good trade to consider: welding. I recently visited Pioneer Pipe in the Utica and Marcellus shale area of Ohio and learned that last year the company paid 60 of its welders more than $150,000 and two of its welders over $200,000. The owner, Dave Archer, said he has had to turn down orders because he can't find enough skilled welders.
According to the 2011 Skills Gap Survey by the Manufacturing Institute, about 600,000 manufacturing jobs are unfilled nationally because employers can't find qualified workers. To help produce a new generation of welders, pipe-fitters, electricians, carpenters, machinists and other skilled tradesmen, high schools should introduce students to the pleasure and pride they can take in making and building things in shop class.
Two people's thoughts from the comments. The first:
ESTELLE BRENNAN Wrote:
There's an old joke told about plumber fixing some problem in under half an hour and charging $250. The guy he was working for said, "I'm a lawyer, and I don't get $500 an hour." The plumber replied, "When I was a lawyer, I didn't get $500 per hour either."
There actually is nothing stopping a liberal arts graduate from entering a skilled trade program (unless he has no mathematical aptitude.) Or for a high school graduate from going into a skilled trade and using his well paid job to finance a college education. You'd be surprised at how many blue collar workers are well educated and intellectual.
One of the great things about America is that you can change your mind and take another path when you are 25 or 35 or 45 or at any time.
Thomas Archer Wrote:
No quarrel with the premise of the article that there are good jobs in the traditional trades and that high school students may be wiser to follow that path. The path is not risk free and $150K jobs are not plentiful or easy.
What the article doesn't say is how many overtime hours the 60 welders had to work to earn $150k, or what the working conditions were like. It doesn't mention that welding, especially on pipelines, is filthy, all weather, exposes the welder to hazardous fumes, it can be dangerous and may require that you work at a remote site; you won't be home for dinner. It may be a job you can do in your early years, but perhaps not so in later years. A lot of prospective Keystone pipeline welders have been waiting for that job to start. The first death I witnessed on an industrial site was a welder who was electrocuted working on a coal conveyor.
Welding is labor intensive, highly skilled and still filled with quality risks which is why stressed welds are often x-rayed and 20% to 30% rework is often common. The point of all this is that since the mid-80's a lot of money and research has gone into fully automating the arc welding process. Robotic systems that used to cost $500k and more now cost under $100K and can run 24/7. The author mentions for example, 3D printing, another technology that generally eliminates the need for welding.
A lot of tradespeople have been and still are without work. So, if you choose a trade for a career, understand what you're in for and what the future may be. Don't be guided by some cherry picked career example that isn't sustainable.
As an aside, Mr. Mandel is Ohio's state Treasurer, obviously working to remake his image following an ugly campaign (both sides) against Sherrod Brown and resounding defeat in a bid for the US Senate. Ohio's Treasurer's aren't traditionally champions of vocational education.
It's A Bad Thing That Doctors Can't Own Hospitals Anymore
Doctors can't own hospitals anymore -- a direct result of government policy, writes Loren Heal at FreedomWorks.org -- and this is not good for patients:
Doctors effectively can't own new hospitals any more. That's because the Big Hospital lobby convinced the leftists who designed Obamacare that physicans owning hospitals was a conflict of interest. That's right: according to that theory, the people who have devoted their lives to the study of medicine want to own hospitals so they can profit by withholding care, or by overcharging for it.
The trouble with that line of reasoning is that the non-physicians in charge of hospitals and insurance companies have no such conflict. Their incentives are to provide as little care as possible while charging as much as they can. Their desire to protect their personal reputations and adherence to ethical code are not as strong as for physicians.
As a solution, he'd like to see a repeal of Obamacare. Anybody think that is likely to happen?
Frozen cherry links. Brain freeze sold separately.
Forbes On Starbucks: "Do Beer And Coffee Mix?"
Question, at Forbes, by Roger Dooley, about Starbucks' testing of wine and beer sales at some establishments:
A coffee shop serving wine and beer might seem a bit incongruous to long-time Starbucks customers, but the chain must have seen enough positive results in its tests to expand the program. And the concept itself is far from revolutionary. Houston Press writer Kaitlin Steinberg lists a flock of alcohol-fueled coffee shops in that city alone. (See Starbucks Won't Be Bringing Booze to Houston, But Who Cares?) With names ranging from the sedate Southside Espresso to the more suggestive Double Trouble Caffeine & Cocktails, these establishments show coffee and alcohol can be compatible partners.
In fact, it's ridiculous that most coffee places don't have wine and that it's hard to get a license from the government to do so. (Or that there is a license required to do so.)
In Paris, Gregg and I sometimes sit out with a friend or just together at Bar du Marché and watch the world go by. Depending on the time of day, we'll either order an espresso or a glass of wine. It really isn't a big deal. And shouldn't be.
Yes, they may lose some people who come to Starbucks after their AA meeting. They also sell beer and wine at the supermarkets in California. Perhaps those people get their groceries delivered.
While The TSA Is All Up In Your Panties...
A 16-year-old boy is hopping the airport fence and stowing away in a plane's wheel well -- all the way to Hawaii.
The TSA provides "security" for idiots -- a security puppet show put on by people who couldn't catch a terrorist if he walked up and introduced himself as "Al Kaida." It's intended to fool people who confuse police-ish-costumed inconvenience and idiocy for actual protection from anything meaningful. Their numbers, sadly, are legion.
And this isn't to say that I buy into the ridiculous fallacy that we can be perfectly safe.
What these costumed thugs are helping make a dent in is our civil liberties. Thank you to all who stand up against the TSA and all of the others who take money for violating people's civil liberties. Jonathan Corbett, especially, deserves our thanks. From a FreedomToTravel newsletter I subscribe to:
Freedom To Travel USA is paying close attention to Jon Corbett's lawsuit.
So what's next? Oral arguments are scheduled for June 4th, 2014, in Miami.
In the meantime, Jon had a heart-felt closing paragraph in his brief:
CORBETT CONCLUDING BRIEF PARAGRAPH
"Nothing that the TSA has argued mitigates the fact that they are literally touching the genitals of random passengers who have committed the sole crime of having desire to travel. Nothing that the TSA has argued mitigates the fact that they are imaging every square inch of the bodies of random passengers when less intrusive, more effective, and less expensive measures are available to it.
If the jurists of this Court wish to live in a world, and have their children grow up in a world, where the above is 'reasonable,' please deny this petition and inform the cave-dwellers in Afghanistan that they have won."
The Thought Crime Of Questioning The Notion Of "Rape Culture"
Julius Kairey writes at The Cornell Sun:
To those who believe in "rape culture," rape is not the result of a few bad actors, but is tolerated, even encouraged, in our college culture. Few people seem willing to challenge this narrative for fear of being called insensitive to the suffering of those who have experienced sexual violence.
A respect for the truth requires that the following question be asked: Is rape so widespread on campuses as to be an epidemic? The oft-cited figure that one-in-four women will been sexually assaulted at least once over the course of her time at college is of dubious accuracy. In fact, more reliable statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that one-in-forty women will be raped over four years of college. Even these lower statistics indicate that there is still much work to be done in reducing sexual violence on campus, and all decent people share the goal of a campus free of sexual violence. But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people on this and other campuses do not condone or engage in rape.
I would be less concerned about the exaggerated statistics about "rape culture," and thus less inclined to criticize it, if it were not causing concrete harm to students. But the belief that rape must be prevented by "any means necessary" has been used to justify the elimination of key protections for students accused of rape in campus judicial systems. Some want the claims of the alleged victims of rape to be accepted as true, and not scrutinized in a fair legal proceeding. Just two years ago, Cornell stripped those accused of sexual offenses of the right to retain an attorney in University proceedings and the right to cross-examine their accusers. A student accused of a sexual offense at Cornell is now not able to directly ask the person who is making a potentially life-ruining accusation a single question about the incident. This is an inexcusable erasure of the fundamental right to confront one's accuser, a right that has existed for all of our country's history. Such rights are not superfluous. They protect us against arbitrary action by those who hold the levers of power.
To make matters worse, the University has dropped the standard of proof in sexual assault cases from "clear and convincing evidence" to "preponderance of the evidence." This means that a Cornell student accused of a violent offense that is sexual in nature will not have the legal safeguards given to others whose alleged offenses were non-sexual. With the punishment being so severe and so much on the line for the accused, how can we accept such a low standard of proof?
Given that this university has a tremendous power to punish students, we have an obligation to make sure that the innocent do not get hurt. Whenever the University makes the scales of justice unequal, the safeguards of due process and equal protection are put in jeopardy. We must always be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and be allowed the basic tools needed to defend ourselves. Do not assume that you will never be accused of something you did not do.
There was a correction at the bottom, which I'm pasting in here:
CORRECTION: This piece originally stated that "one in four women will be raped at least once over the course of her time at college." In fact, the statistic, according to data compiled by the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, is that one in four women will be the victim of sexual assault during their academic career.
So much safer than chasing the bad guys, notes Ted Balaker in the video from reason.tv:
Linkie with oafs and raisins.
Advice Goddess Radio, Tonite, 7-8pm PT, 10-11pm ET: Dr. Edward Deci On How To Be Self-Motivated And To Best Motivate Others
Amy Alkon's Advice Goddess Radio: "Nerd Your Way To A Better Life!" with the best brains in therapy and research.
*Easter Sunday "Best Of" Replay.
Many people seem to think that the most effective motivation comes from outside of us, that motivating is something one person does to or for another. The studies done by my guest tonight, psychologist Dr. Edward L. Deci, find that self-motivation, not external motivation, is at the heart of creativity, responsibility, healthy behavior, and lasting change.
This is essential to understand whether we are trying to motivate ourselves or looking to encourage others to successfully motivate themselves.
On tonight's show, Dr. Deci will tell us what research shows about we go wrong in our thinking on motivation and how we can become more self-motivated -- and thus happier and more successful in every aspect of our lives.
Dr. Deci's book we'll be discussing tonight is "Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation."
Listen at this link from 7-8 pm Pacific, 10-11 pm Eastern, or download the podcast afterward:
Don't miss last week's show with "Dilbert" cartoonist Scott Adams.
Adams, obviously, is not a scientist. But he thinks and views his experiences like a scientist and his wisdom is well-supported and worth hearing.
For example, Adams found that it isn't goals that are the key to success, but what he calls "systems."
And Adams advises, based on his own steady stream of failures in business, that "Everything you want in life is in that bubbling vat of failure. The trick is to get the good stuff out."
As a cartoonist, he thinks of himself as a "professional simplifier." That's what he does in his just-published book, How To Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, and simplifying for all of us what it takes to succeed in business and be happy in life is what he'll be doing on tonight's not-to-be-missed show.
Listen at this link or download the podcast:
Join me and my fascinating guests every Sunday, 7-8 p.m. Pacific Time, 10-11 p.m. Eastern Time, at blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon or subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher.
My show's sponsor is now Audible.com. Get a free audiobook download and support this show financially at no cost to you by signing up for a free 30-day trial at audibletrial.com/amya (It's $14.95 after 30 days, but you can cancel before then and have it cost you nothing.)
Name Your Trendy Baby
My proposed hot baby boy names for the near future: Zeus, Euripedes, and Aristophanes.
Demonizing Alcohol To Your Kids Isn't The Answer
Barry Adkins writes at Good Men Project about his son dying of alcohol poisoning the day he moved out on his own, but Adkins takes the wrong approach in advising other parents how they might avoid this, thinking his intuition is enough:
I am not advocating that we go back to the days of prohibition. It didn't work before, it won't work now. I am guessing that at least one person reading this article is asking this question; Barry, do you drink? The answer is yes, typically I will have one beer and I am not talking about one of those huge, 24 oz. beers.
I am advocating better educating our children about the dangers of alcohol abuse. Uneducated decisions, made by our children, can lead to tragedy; Educated decisions will lead to a far better outcome. As a society we do a lousy job of discouraging our children from drinking. Television shows and movies glorify binge drinking. They show people getting drunk and having a "good time." They don't bother to show you the bad things that can happen when your child drinks. Your child could get behind the wheel and kill someone or themselves, die from alcohol poisoning, or get a DUI. There could be things like rape or sexual assault--your child could be either victim or assailant. For your precious little girl, unwanted pregnancy and STD's. For that boy you are so proud of, he could be assaulted, or assault someone, or become an unplanned father.
...I am often asked for advice on how to talk to teenagers about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The standard advice is: "talk to your teenager." Great advice, but I suspect for many of us, including me, it turns into an awkward conversation, with your teenager tuning you out. I believe that the easier thing to do, in the beginning, is to have conversations about alcohol with your spouse/adult family member while your teenager is within hearing distance. Teenagers are typically much more likely to want to listen in on a conversation than to be in the middle of it. The car is always a great place for this. Start by talking about a recent news story, and there is no shortage of them, where alcohol led to something bad happening.
Another fairly easy thing to do, is to make a list of the bad things that can happen when you abuse alcohol. Under each bad thing, list someone you know that has suffered the consequences. Everyone knows someone who has been impacted by alcohol abuse! Print it out and post it in places where it will be seen in your house such as, the refrigerator or the bathroom mirror. Update it when you hear new stories.
It's a horrible thing to lose a child, and the guy means well in trying to prevent that happening for others, but his advice is pretty bad.
Kids shrug off the bogeymen presented to them. You give kids a responsible attitude about alcohol by giving them alcohol and showing them drinking responsibly as a normal part of life.
Addiction treatment specialist Stanton Peele wrote in 2008:
Alcohol poisoning incidents are extremely rare, remarkably enough, given the widespread binge drinking that occurs among young Americans in late adolescence, college, and through their mid-twenties.
Those fatal drinking events that do occur are most likely to befall young people from abstinent backgrounds who have no experience limiting their drinking when they participate in extreme initiations with other teens or college students.
One point these speakers make is that, the earlier young people begin to drink, the more likely they are to become alcoholic later in life. Perhaps they are harkening to a study led by Wake Forest Medical School researcher Kristie Foley which found that teens whose parents permitted them to attend drinking parties were twice as likely to binge, a finding broadcast around the country.
Less publicized was this result from the study: children who drank with their parents were one third as likely to binge outside the home. The difference between young teens sneaking into the woods to become falling-down drunk and kids sitting around the table with their parents drinking small amounts of wine is so obvious you wouldn't think the distintion would need to be drawn, would you?
Here's another mother I spoke to. Although her father, mother, and brother all had serious drinking issues, she drank moderately. Moreover, she made sure to introduce her two children to alcohol at home. When I complimented her for overcoming her own troubled family background with alcohol to create a moderate drinking household, she disclaimed credit.
"It's so obvious that I didn't want them to learn to drink by sneaking drinks around the house like I did or by bingeing when they got to college, I really can't take any credit for doing something so sensible."
I respectfully demurred. This woman, although not from an ethnic background (e.g., Jewish, Italian, Chinese, Greek) that socialized drinking in the home, figured out that this was the best policy on her own. And, apparently, there are other Americans out there like her!
Peele explains further:
The Italians, Jews, Greeks, and other low-alcoholism cultures, on the other hand, teach youngsters to drink at meals and religious celebrations within the family. In these ethnic groups the whole outlook and atmosphere connected with drinking are different--it doesn't carry the emotional baggage that drinking does for groups with a greater susceptibility to alcoholism. In the homes of low-alcoholism ethnic groups, alcohol is usually served at home very early to children, who see drinking occur as an ordinary part of family celebrations. What they don't see occur when people drink is violence and drunkenness.
...The two sociologists went further and asked Jews about their attitudes toward drinking and alcoholism. They found that Jews as a group are antagonistic to the disease view of alcoholism. Jews think alcoholics drink out of a psychological dependence, and they regard problem drinkers with distaste and avoid them. In other words, groups with higher alcoholism rates, like the Irish and Baptists and Slavs and Scandinavians, already fear alcohol and readily accept that alcoholism is a disease, whereas the Chinese, Jews, and Italians--groups with the lowest alcoholism rates--think of alcoholism as a self-initiated problem that can be controlled. How, we might wonder, have the people with the worst drinking problems taken over in telling the rest of us about the nature of alcoholism and how we should drink?
Sowell: Ahead Of His Time On Drug Legalization
Thomas Sowell from 1984 on "Why drugs should be legalized":
Islam And Tolerance: A One-Way Street
Brunei is about to implement a penal code that conforms to the Quran, allowing them to stone people for having gay sex.
Aileen Graef writes for UPI:
The penal code allows stoning for multiple offenses: rape, adultery, sodomy, extra-marital sex, gay sex, insulting the Quran or Hadith, blasphemy, declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, and murder.
Brunei hasn't conducted an execution since 1957, but this is a part of Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah's push towards a stricter interpretation of Shariah law.
The United Nations and human rights advocates have condemned Brunei's penal code and have asked the sultan to stop its implementation, as it violates international law.
Additionally, per Weasel Zippers, alcohol consumption in public by Brunei's non-Muslim citizens or permanent residents during their time abroad would be punishable under this new penal code.
P.S. If you're gay, might be time to give up on the Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the Sultan of Slay The Gays.
The hotel, in The Hollywood Reporter, came out with a strong message in favor of money, uh, gay rights:
"[W]e do not tolerate any form of discrimination of any kind," read a statement issued by the Beverly Hills Hotel to THR. "We are also against any law in any other country around the world that punishes people for their religious beliefs, ethnicity, race or sexual orientation. The laws and policies that govern how we run our hotel have nothing to do with the laws that exist in any other country outside of the United States. We do not tolerate any form of discrimination and strongly value people and cultural diversity amongst our guests and employees."
Linkie, touched by an alien. (No relation to Balkie.)