Can a 15-Year-Old Be a ‘Woman Without a Spouse’?
By BYRON CALAME
Published: February 11, 2007
The opening paragraph of the article sounded like grown-up stuff: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”
Original article here
Monday, February 12, 2007
What an awesome quote:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 1907
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, 1907
Friday, January 26, 2007
Chumps at NWF
A response to the folks at the Inconvenient Truth blog at the World Wildlife Fund site.
Sorry, friends, but what a bunch of chumps. More Kool Aid, anyone?
News you can use: Lots of money, including multinational corporate money, is wrapped up in making you think we can do a lot about global warming. Why? So they can sell us stuff.
Who do you think is going to sell you all those special lightbulbs? Do the research and build the plants to produce alternate fuels? And millions of dollars are at stake in government grants, all to study global warming. Even the NWF website is part of the hype. It's an industry, folks.
GW is real, apparently, but the truth is we can't do much about it because we haven't caused that much of it. 10-20%, maybe.
The good news is, it won't be as bad as the hype. Even the new IPCC makes that much clear. Sorry, Al and company, catastrophe isn't likely. In the short run, all we can really do is figure out how to adapt. Living near the shore of a small Pacific island? Move inland or to the mainland.
For the rest of us, we'll need to work on these serious problems: What will we do with all that heating oil we won't need to heat our homes anymore? What will we do with all the newly productive farm land and longer growing seasons? What will we do with all the super cheap oil that will suddenly become available when demand drops? What will we do with the millions of impoverished Middle Eastern migrants leaving a region now even less inhabitable and even less viable economically, now that the world has turned away from its principal resource?
Sorry, friends, but what a bunch of chumps. More Kool Aid, anyone?
News you can use: Lots of money, including multinational corporate money, is wrapped up in making you think we can do a lot about global warming. Why? So they can sell us stuff.
Who do you think is going to sell you all those special lightbulbs? Do the research and build the plants to produce alternate fuels? And millions of dollars are at stake in government grants, all to study global warming. Even the NWF website is part of the hype. It's an industry, folks.
GW is real, apparently, but the truth is we can't do much about it because we haven't caused that much of it. 10-20%, maybe.
The good news is, it won't be as bad as the hype. Even the new IPCC makes that much clear. Sorry, Al and company, catastrophe isn't likely. In the short run, all we can really do is figure out how to adapt. Living near the shore of a small Pacific island? Move inland or to the mainland.
For the rest of us, we'll need to work on these serious problems: What will we do with all that heating oil we won't need to heat our homes anymore? What will we do with all the newly productive farm land and longer growing seasons? What will we do with all the super cheap oil that will suddenly become available when demand drops? What will we do with the millions of impoverished Middle Eastern migrants leaving a region now even less inhabitable and even less viable economically, now that the world has turned away from its principal resource?
Monday, January 15, 2007
By the Numbers, New York Times Style
Once again, the NYT reports the news as they wish it was. They do an article which appears to suggest that women are rejecting marriage. And whom does the author, Sam Roberts (and Ariel Sabar, Brenda Goodman and Maureen Balleza, who "contributed reporting," no doubt by calling their friends or mothers or mothers' friends) talk to about this vital topic?
By the numbers:
Axe-grinding feminist professors with an agenda: 1
20-something women: 1
30-something women: 1
40-something women: 1
50-something women: 3
Women currently living in New York City: 2
Never-married women: 3
Women living in "red" states: 2
Working-class women: 0
Currently married women: 0
Women not living in large cities: 0
Nothing outrageous here, except when you consider that Prof. Stephanie Coontz, on whose research conclusions the article is based, is author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.” How is it seemingly all feminist social-science research magically supports the conclusions its author has already reached and on which her career is entirely based?
Amazingly, given that she's an "expert," she seems unsure about the historical precedence (and thus meaning) of her research. Ac cording to the article, "Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery." Probably unprecedented? If this is such a major development, and if she is such an expert, and given the pronouncements about public policy she's making (essentially that we shouldn't base it on marriage anymore), couldn't we reasonably expect that she would have been aware of the historical context of her own study?
By the numbers:
Axe-grinding feminist professors with an agenda: 1
20-something women: 1
30-something women: 1
40-something women: 1
50-something women: 3
Women currently living in New York City: 2
Never-married women: 3
Women living in "red" states: 2
Working-class women: 0
Currently married women: 0
Women not living in large cities: 0
Nothing outrageous here, except when you consider that Prof. Stephanie Coontz, on whose research conclusions the article is based, is author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.” How is it seemingly all feminist social-science research magically supports the conclusions its author has already reached and on which her career is entirely based?
Amazingly, given that she's an "expert," she seems unsure about the historical precedence (and thus meaning) of her research. Ac cording to the article, "Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery." Probably unprecedented? If this is such a major development, and if she is such an expert, and given the pronouncements about public policy she's making (essentially that we shouldn't base it on marriage anymore), couldn't we reasonably expect that she would have been aware of the historical context of her own study?
January 16, 2007
51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
By SAM ROBERTS
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American omen are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times nalysis of census results. more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)