Friday, November 28, 2003
THAT 70's SHOW
Way back in 1972, feminist scholar Jessie Bernard argued that marriage is bad for women (but she thought it was a pretty good deal for men) in her hugely influential book The Future of Marriage. The idea took hold, eventually finding its way into college textbooks and our popular culture. Despite the fact that most of what she wrote has since been discredited, Volokh Conspiracy contributor Jacob Levy recently cited this marriage myth as fact in his post about the constitutionality of a ban on nonprocreative marriage:
To the contrary, a recent Department of Justice report notes "[d]uring 2002 persons who had never married were victims of violent crime overall, rape/sexual assault, total assault, and simple assault at rates higher than those for married, widowed, or divorced/separated persons. Persons who had never married and those who were divorced/separated were victims of robbery and of aggravated assault at similar rates."
Lesson: It's not a good idea to rely on your memory or, god forbid, popular culture.
There's more. Three years ago, self-described "liberal democrat" and coauthor of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially (Doubleday, 2000) refuted this myth citing among other sources, a 1990 study which showed that unmarried women have a 50 percent higher mortality rate than married women. (I guess Levy, who blogs from the University of Chicago, doesn't read his own employer's magazine).
Furthermore, The Case for Marriage showed that married women have better mental health than singles. The same results were found in a 1997 Australian study of more than 10,000 people for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, by sociologist David De Vaus.
Bell bottoms and blue eyeshadow may be back in fashion, but discredited truisms do not, and should not, experience similar revivals.
Matthew Yglesias also picks up on this point and runs with it: "if you're a woman, getting married increases your chances of being murdered pretty significantly."as I understand the social science on this topic, marriage is an almost unmitigated good for men in terms of things like life expectancy and reported satisfaction with life but is mixed at best for women, with married women's life expectancy actually falling below that of single women-- even, as I recall, controlling for death during childbirth.
To the contrary, a recent Department of Justice report notes "[d]uring 2002 persons who had never married were victims of violent crime overall, rape/sexual assault, total assault, and simple assault at rates higher than those for married, widowed, or divorced/separated persons. Persons who had never married and those who were divorced/separated were victims of robbery and of aggravated assault at similar rates."
Lesson: It's not a good idea to rely on your memory or, god forbid, popular culture.
There's more. Three years ago, self-described "liberal democrat" and coauthor of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially (Doubleday, 2000) refuted this myth citing among other sources, a 1990 study which showed that unmarried women have a 50 percent higher mortality rate than married women. (I guess Levy, who blogs from the University of Chicago, doesn't read his own employer's magazine).
Furthermore, The Case for Marriage showed that married women have better mental health than singles. The same results were found in a 1997 Australian study of more than 10,000 people for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, by sociologist David De Vaus.
Bell bottoms and blue eyeshadow may be back in fashion, but discredited truisms do not, and should not, experience similar revivals.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
WHO DROPPED THE F-BOMB?
Lileks did first. Then Dan Drezner got in on the act. All sorts of other people had opinions (summarized at Instapundit, among other web water coolers). Which caused Lileks to apologize.
Andrea Harris thought this was silly: "I guess it's some Midwestern thing, to get embarassed over a cuss word."
Too true. Too true.
We Midwesterners do avoid the "f-bomb" at all costs. The problem is, we just look dorky when we use it. We're simply too well-scrubbed to be able to carry it off. We also don't hold cigarettes the right way and we sort of choke on the smoke. Speaking of choking, why do they make scotch whiskey so it burns so much? Wine coolers are so much smoother. Now there's a drink!
Come to think of it, I believe they teach our kids to use the term "Uff da!" to express strong emotion at school, but I guess James must have forgotten temporarily. But we'll forgive him. After all, he did apologize so nicely. Now Dan, it's your turn. Chicago is technically in the Midwest after all. Let's keep the discussion civilized!
But Harris, who lives in Florida, thinks no apology was necessary, "Besides, I had grown bored with the little Baghdad pantywaist ages ago." Maybe she does have a point...
Andrea Harris thought this was silly: "I guess it's some Midwestern thing, to get embarassed over a cuss word."
Too true. Too true.
We Midwesterners do avoid the "f-bomb" at all costs. The problem is, we just look dorky when we use it. We're simply too well-scrubbed to be able to carry it off. We also don't hold cigarettes the right way and we sort of choke on the smoke. Speaking of choking, why do they make scotch whiskey so it burns so much? Wine coolers are so much smoother. Now there's a drink!
Come to think of it, I believe they teach our kids to use the term "Uff da!" to express strong emotion at school, but I guess James must have forgotten temporarily. But we'll forgive him. After all, he did apologize so nicely. Now Dan, it's your turn. Chicago is technically in the Midwest after all. Let's keep the discussion civilized!
But Harris, who lives in Florida, thinks no apology was necessary, "Besides, I had grown bored with the little Baghdad pantywaist ages ago." Maybe she does have a point...
Sunday, November 23, 2003
THIS BLOG SAVES LIVES
The Warrior Monk, despite his moniker, is a pretty mild mannered guy (and frighteningly well-read too). Like all generalized statements though, there are glaring exceptions to this assessment and they are:
1. Driving
2. Squirrels
Number 1 is of no note; it seems nearly every American male is, at best, cranky behind the wheel. But number 2?
I don't pay much attention to squirrels myself. I remember my Italian cousins being fascinated by their antics when they visited my family (don't they have squirrels in Italy? I forgot to look into this when I visited...). Although I didn't appreciate the way my dog would go postal at the site of one, yanking me sideways and then disappearing into the park, despite choke collar, I felt that was really the dog's fault and did not hold the squirrels accountable. I have a hard time demonizing anything furry with big eyes. And I have it on good authority that their antics are motivated entirely by nuts:
Seems pretty harmless to me.
But not to The Warrior Monk. Last fall, The Warrior Monk operated on the principle that squirrels are planning for world domination and only he could stop them. It all started when some squirrels chewed through the soffit on the Monk's home and set up house on his back porch. His response: Squirrel Armageddon. Their act of trespass set off some long-dormant anti-squirrel pathway in his brain. He got a trap and spent untold hours experimenting with bait (I believe he concluded that peanut butter worked best). While talking with him, you might notice that his attention seemed to have wandered. Then he would suddenly dart out the front door and slowly creep around to the back of the house to check the trap. He spent hours staring out his back window at the squirrels who would nose around inside the trap tantalizinngly ... then they would take off with the bait. Yes, squirrels were a real Warrior Monk obsession.
Trying to be a good supportive coblogger, this fall I looked into the squirrel issue further and discovered that they aren't quite the harmless furballs I thought them. Turns out they may add $10 million to the cost of building a road in Washington State, knock out power and shut down the Internet and even have been known to attack drivers.
I was shocked--and ready to join the Monk Crusade. But this fall I find the squirrels have been allowed to multiply unmolested. What's changed? Papa's got a brand new blog.
1. Driving
2. Squirrels
Number 1 is of no note; it seems nearly every American male is, at best, cranky behind the wheel. But number 2?
I don't pay much attention to squirrels myself. I remember my Italian cousins being fascinated by their antics when they visited my family (don't they have squirrels in Italy? I forgot to look into this when I visited...). Although I didn't appreciate the way my dog would go postal at the site of one, yanking me sideways and then disappearing into the park, despite choke collar, I felt that was really the dog's fault and did not hold the squirrels accountable. I have a hard time demonizing anything furry with big eyes. And I have it on good authority that their antics are motivated entirely by nuts:
-Danny The Squirrel"Do you want to make good with me? Then you'd better bust out the nuts. That's the way to this squirrel's heart. Don't worry. You won't offend me if you assume that I eat nuts, because it's true. I do. So do all of my squirrel friends."
Seems pretty harmless to me.
But not to The Warrior Monk. Last fall, The Warrior Monk operated on the principle that squirrels are planning for world domination and only he could stop them. It all started when some squirrels chewed through the soffit on the Monk's home and set up house on his back porch. His response: Squirrel Armageddon. Their act of trespass set off some long-dormant anti-squirrel pathway in his brain. He got a trap and spent untold hours experimenting with bait (I believe he concluded that peanut butter worked best). While talking with him, you might notice that his attention seemed to have wandered. Then he would suddenly dart out the front door and slowly creep around to the back of the house to check the trap. He spent hours staring out his back window at the squirrels who would nose around inside the trap tantalizinngly ... then they would take off with the bait. Yes, squirrels were a real Warrior Monk obsession.
Trying to be a good supportive coblogger, this fall I looked into the squirrel issue further and discovered that they aren't quite the harmless furballs I thought them. Turns out they may add $10 million to the cost of building a road in Washington State, knock out power and shut down the Internet and even have been known to attack drivers.
I was shocked--and ready to join the Monk Crusade. But this fall I find the squirrels have been allowed to multiply unmolested. What's changed? Papa's got a brand new blog.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
INTERSTITIAL COW
We're running a bit low on material for our interstitial entertainment duties so we're going to our dopey roots and bringing you the only joke we can remember the punchline to:
Jokester: knock knock
Jokee: who's there?
Jokester: interrupting cow
Jokee: interupt.... ?
Jokester: Moo!
[please laugh at this point]
We understand that our friends and family, who make up most of this site's visitors, will have already heard this but we hope they love us and will return nonetheless (some of them inexplicably love the joke too -- we hear it's all the rage at the Department of Justice now). The 5 or 6 of you who don't fall into this category: please bear with us. The Warrior Monk is up next to elevate the level of discussion.
Jokester: knock knock
Jokee: who's there?
Jokester: interrupting cow
Jokee: interupt.... ?
Jokester: Moo!
[please laugh at this point]
We understand that our friends and family, who make up most of this site's visitors, will have already heard this but we hope they love us and will return nonetheless (some of them inexplicably love the joke too -- we hear it's all the rage at the Department of Justice now). The 5 or 6 of you who don't fall into this category: please bear with us. The Warrior Monk is up next to elevate the level of discussion.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
GRANDPA BELL
Many years ago my grandfather got in a fight with AT&T. He had been born in a small Croatian town several decades after the invention of the telephone but before the first U.S. President got one on his desk. So when, wonder of wonders!, he finally had the opportunity to have one on HIS desk, and used it to call ME perhaps it wasn't too surprising that he should have a different opinion of how it should work than did AT&T. You see, AT&T had the audacity to charge my grandfather for one minute of airtime when he reached my answering machine rather than me. This made no sense to my Otata--he hadn't actually gotten the benefit of his bargain--so why should he have to pay?
Sadly for AT&T, my grandfather was retired and seemed to rather enjoy writing letters and having long conversations at AT&T's expense to explain his point of view. Oh how I wish he were here to help me now.
My problem is that AT&T has been stalking me. Three phone calls in three days. This morning I finally stayed on long enough to figure out what was going on: my (alleged) $172 bill!
That got my attention.
So ensued a Kafaka-esque (what ever did we call it back before 1913?) series of recorded messages taunting me with illusory wait time figures culminating in a ringing phone with no answer (remember, this is the phone company we're talking about). When I finally (I'm nothing if not dogged, especially if the purpose is idiotic) got a real person I was told she could do nothing because my bill had not yet been mailed out.
Defeated.
Oh, and my grandfather? Well, that was back when AT&T was more rational. They evidently weighed the cost of 4 or 5 fifteen cent phone calls against the cost of dealing with a dogged retired senior citizen with a charming but inscrutable accent and came to the only reasonable conclusion: "Why of course sir you're right! We'll take it off your bill right away."
Sadly for AT&T, my grandfather was retired and seemed to rather enjoy writing letters and having long conversations at AT&T's expense to explain his point of view. Oh how I wish he were here to help me now.
My problem is that AT&T has been stalking me. Three phone calls in three days. This morning I finally stayed on long enough to figure out what was going on: my (alleged) $172 bill!
That got my attention.
So ensued a Kafaka-esque (what ever did we call it back before 1913?) series of recorded messages taunting me with illusory wait time figures culminating in a ringing phone with no answer (remember, this is the phone company we're talking about). When I finally (I'm nothing if not dogged, especially if the purpose is idiotic) got a real person I was told she could do nothing because my bill had not yet been mailed out.
Defeated.
Oh, and my grandfather? Well, that was back when AT&T was more rational. They evidently weighed the cost of 4 or 5 fifteen cent phone calls against the cost of dealing with a dogged retired senior citizen with a charming but inscrutable accent and came to the only reasonable conclusion: "Why of course sir you're right! We'll take it off your bill right away."
Thursday, November 13, 2003
BLOGGING: THE NEW WOUNDING APP?
I haven't even been blogging, well coblogging, for a week yet I'm ready to go out on a limb and make a bold prediction. A prediction about the very future of Internet Explorer and the blogging phenomenon, no less! (I guess I have less built up blogging goodwill to lose than The W. Monk who never makes predictions, although he does go out on limbs. All the time).
Grand prediction (drumroll please): Internet Explorer will soon contain an integrated blogging feature.
After all, Microsoft just announced that the next version of IE will squish popup ads like bugs. Since Google has bought blogger.com and offers a nice popup killer too adding blogging to IE seems like a natural progression to me. The computer industry has been looking for a new killer app for years now with no luck. This is probably the best they will be able to come up with. The only remaining question is whether Microsoft will need to buy Movable Type to complete its plans to rule the world?
You heard it here first. (And you thought The Monk was the nerdy one here at Spitbull. Think again.)
Grand prediction (drumroll please): Internet Explorer will soon contain an integrated blogging feature.
After all, Microsoft just announced that the next version of IE will squish popup ads like bugs. Since Google has bought blogger.com and offers a nice popup killer too adding blogging to IE seems like a natural progression to me. The computer industry has been looking for a new killer app for years now with no luck. This is probably the best they will be able to come up with. The only remaining question is whether Microsoft will need to buy Movable Type to complete its plans to rule the world?
You heard it here first. (And you thought The Monk was the nerdy one here at Spitbull. Think again.)
Sunday, November 09, 2003
GUARDA LA LUNA
They interviewed a local astronomer on the radio yesterday about the lunar eclipse but I had really forgotten all about it when my companion told me that the sight of it was sure to cause a few traffic accidents. He was driving us to dinner as he said this and was looking up at the sky rather than down at the road. I'd rather you pull over if you want to guarda la luna (this being the first Italian phrase I ever learned. Torta and gelato, cake and ice cream, were my first two words. Guess how old I was) I said. He did.
I must admit, it was an impressive sight. Instinctively, it looks wrong, and importantly so. The radio astronomer had talked for a while about how people used to think eclipses were very bad omens . I could see their point. Even though we've apparently now mapped out the lunar schedule ad infinitum, an eclipse, when you can see it, is arresting. It looks for a while like a new moon, but backwards. For a split second before I remembered how it worked I did think "something's not right." It's not unlike the feeling I get when I walk outside in the subzero sunshine of a Minnesota February day and think "this could kill me." Then my rational self steps in and replaces the thought with "and what dope thought it was a good idea to build a city here?"
During dinner, I was able to use what I had learned about eclipses from the radio show to act like I knew what I was talking about but when I had exhausted this (and this happened pretty quickly), I lost interest in the subject. My dining companion, on the other hand, kept staring at the eclipse and trying to work out the mechanics of the event. This is not something I think you can figure out without some training in the subject. Plus, it's kind of boring to watch someone try (this was not one of those restaurants with crayons and white tablepaper; he was trying to do it with hand gestures). To get him to stop, I promised to look it up later. For him, and those of you who still care, here's how lunar eclipses work.
Now, guarda la donna.
I must admit, it was an impressive sight. Instinctively, it looks wrong, and importantly so. The radio astronomer had talked for a while about how people used to think eclipses were very bad omens . I could see their point. Even though we've apparently now mapped out the lunar schedule ad infinitum, an eclipse, when you can see it, is arresting. It looks for a while like a new moon, but backwards. For a split second before I remembered how it worked I did think "something's not right." It's not unlike the feeling I get when I walk outside in the subzero sunshine of a Minnesota February day and think "this could kill me." Then my rational self steps in and replaces the thought with "and what dope thought it was a good idea to build a city here?"
During dinner, I was able to use what I had learned about eclipses from the radio show to act like I knew what I was talking about but when I had exhausted this (and this happened pretty quickly), I lost interest in the subject. My dining companion, on the other hand, kept staring at the eclipse and trying to work out the mechanics of the event. This is not something I think you can figure out without some training in the subject. Plus, it's kind of boring to watch someone try (this was not one of those restaurants with crayons and white tablepaper; he was trying to do it with hand gestures). To get him to stop, I promised to look it up later. For him, and those of you who still care, here's how lunar eclipses work.
Now, guarda la donna.
Friday, November 07, 2003
DETAILED LEADING ECONOMIC INDICATORS TELL THE REAL STORY
My very first post and I got a warm welcome from the Eldest of the Fraters! According to today's Science Journal (WSJ sec. B1 for those who, like I, only have access to the hard copy), such high expectations could turn me into a female Easterblogg! (Maybe this is a bad example) (Or maybe the expectations thingy only works for rats and schoolkids. I kinda skimmed the column...)
Anyway, after basking in the welcome, I noticed a later post that proves the economy MUST be looking up. The Fraters leading indicator, also known as JB Doubtless, has landed a job! Such economic prognosticators appeal to me, having mapped out my posting territory as details, bloggy or otherwise.
In his post, Doubtless outed apparently still unemployed Mitch Berg, as a sometime poet. As the minister of all things small, I offer him a new outlet for his creativity: collaborative poetry courtesy of smalltime.com. (Get it? SMALLtime.com? I amaze myself sometimes--or maybe it's that rat-expectations-altering research at work.)
So, the question to ponder is: if Mitch gets a job, will that mean the economy has reached a bubble state again?
Anyway, after basking in the welcome, I noticed a later post that proves the economy MUST be looking up. The Fraters leading indicator, also known as JB Doubtless, has landed a job! Such economic prognosticators appeal to me, having mapped out my posting territory as details, bloggy or otherwise.
In his post, Doubtless outed apparently still unemployed Mitch Berg, as a sometime poet. As the minister of all things small, I offer him a new outlet for his creativity: collaborative poetry courtesy of smalltime.com. (Get it? SMALLtime.com? I amaze myself sometimes--or maybe it's that rat-expectations-altering research at work.)
So, the question to ponder is: if Mitch gets a job, will that mean the economy has reached a bubble state again?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
SOME MIGHT CALL ME SMALL-MINDED...
As the new blog guest, I'm starting out (and possibly staying) with very small matters.
1. While I have no interest in the dustup over the recently yanked Reagan mini series (neither the show, nor the reasons for its demise) I do love the new descriptor it spawned: "Gippergate"
2. I like the word "blog" despite, or because of, the fact it sounds like a bodily function. Unfortunately, not enough to entirely discourage pretention, but maybe it does help out at the margin.
Is that small enough for you? I hope The W. Monk will now get back in the saddle and think big.
1. While I have no interest in the dustup over the recently yanked Reagan mini series (neither the show, nor the reasons for its demise) I do love the new descriptor it spawned: "Gippergate"
2. I like the word "blog" despite, or because of, the fact it sounds like a bodily function. Unfortunately, not enough to entirely discourage pretention, but maybe it does help out at the margin.
Is that small enough for you? I hope The W. Monk will now get back in the saddle and think big.
