October 2005 Archives

Jim Lindgren wants the sun to set later, but Eugene Volokh just wants more daylight, period. I'd prefer the latter but I'll settle for the former, and I like Mr. Lindgren's proposal to shift the clock an hour ahead permanently and another hour ahead in the summer. Who needs sunlight at 6am? Fewer than 2% of Americans are farmers.

Update:
Here's a nifty page with a history of daylight savings time and standard time in general. I love this sort of trivia:

Time zone boundaries have changed greatly since their original introduction and changes still occasionally occur. The Department of Transportation conducts rulemakings to consider requests for changes. Generally, time zone boundaries have tended to shift westward. Places on the eastern edge of a time zone can effectively move sunset an hour later (by the clock) by shifting to the time zone immediately to their east. If they do so, the boundary of that zone is locally shifted to the west; the accumulation of such changes results in the long-term westward trend.

My new wife isn't too fond of Maureen Dowd. That's my girl!

But I have to agree with MoDo's regret about moden women's rapant sexuality.

It took only a few decades to create a brazen new world where the highest ideal is to acknowledge your inner slut. I am woman; see me strip. Instead of peaceful havens of girl things and boy things, we have a society where women of all ages are striving to become self-actualized sex kittens. Hollywood actresses now work out by taking pole-dancing classes.

Female sexuality has been a confusing corkscrew path, not a serene progressive arc. We had decades of Victorian prudery, when women were not supposed to like sex. Then we had the pill and zipless encounters, when women were supposed to have the same animalistic drive as men. Then it was discovered - shock, horror! - that men and women are not alike in their desires. But zipless morphed into hookups, and the more one-night stands the girls on "Sex and the City" had, the grumpier they got.

Though as my wife points out, MoDo and her ilk have long been part of the problem, and it's merely ironic that the old-style feminists are only now lamenting that society as a whole is reaping what they have sown.

What I didn't like at the start of the feminist movement was that young women were dressing alike, looking alike and thinking alike. They were supposed to be liberated, but it just seemed like stifling conformity.

What I don't like now is that the young women rejecting the feminist movement are dressing alike, looking alike and thinking alike. The plumage is more colorful, the shapes are more curvy, the look is more plastic, the message is diametrically opposite - before it was don't be a sex object; now it's be a sex object - but the conformity is just as stifling.

MoDo correctly perceives media portrayal of modern young women, but as always the media shows only the surface. A Times article I linked to last month painted the recent trends in a much more positive light.

Consider a very gentle slope and a fairly inelastic ball. Why is it that there are some circumstances such that:

1. The ball can sit on the slope without rolling.

2. If nudged downhill, the ball will begin to roll down the slope and pick up speed.

3. If nudged uphill, the ball will roll uphill, slow down, and then start rolling downhill and pick up speed.

During (3), mustn't the ball at some point pass through whatever zero-velocity condition is required for state (1)? At that point, why doesn't the ball stop? The only explanation I can think of is that there must be some lateral motion that doesn't get zeroed.

Slashdot linked to an article about warm-blooded fish that appear to maintain their temperature by exertion.

Scientists now have direct evidence that the north Pacific salmon shark maintains its red muscle (RM) at 68-86 degrees Fahrenheit (F), much warmer than the 47 F water in which it lives. The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive the cold waters of the north Pacific and take advantage of the abundant food supply there. The heat also appears to factor into the fish's impressive swimming ability.

Very strange. How do humans stay warm? I never thought much about it, but I assume the chemical reactions in a human stomach are exothermic and give off heat, and that this heat is transmitted to the blood by conduction and from the blood to the rest of the body through convection. Then again, our other cells must also generate heat when they process adenosine triphosphate for energy.

I'll have to do some more research, but The Straight Dope confirms most of my hunches about being warm-blooded.

First off, let's get a few terms straight. "Warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" are misleading labels. Modern biologists generally use two other contrasting pairs of terms to describe the thermal physiology of animals: homeotherm/poikilotherm and endotherm/ectotherm. (Don't things seem clearer already?) Basically, a homeotherm is an organism that maintains its body temperature at a nearly constant level, while a poikilotherm experiences much larger fluctuations. The latter terms refer to the source of the body's heat. In endotherms, most of the heat is generated internally, through metabolism, while in ectotherms, most of the heat comes from external sources, such as the sun.

By this categorization the fish above are clear poikilotherms, since their internal temperature can vary across an 18-degree range. It's interesting though that they generate some heat from their metabolism indirectly through muscle movement.

Everything I've read this morning about Samuel Alito inclines me to think he'll be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. I'll be updating this post as I come across posts and articles I feel are relevant.

Even his opponents like him.

Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says. ...

Off the bench, friends and colleagues describe Alito as quiet and self-effacing with a wry sense of humor. He is a voracious reader with a particular love for biographies and history. With his wife, Martha, he has a son in college and a daughter in high school. "He's mild mannered and generous and family oriented," Lustberg says. "I don't agree with him on many issues, but I have the utmost respect for him. No one can question his intelligence or integrity."

An activist conservative judge with unquestionable intelligence and integrity? Considering that "activist" is in the eye of the beholder these days, that sounds like a pretty strong recommendation to me.

All the judges on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals seem to think Judge Alito will make an excellent Justice.

The 14-member court has long been regarded by law professors as more moderate and fact-driven, in contrast to strident ideology found on bitterly divided courts such as the Richmond-based 4th Circuit and San Francisco-based 9th Circuit.

Some of Alito's colleagues say one reason is the modesty and collegiality of Alito.

"The entire court is thrilled with the appointment," said Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, a Reagan appointee. "Whatever quality you think a judge ought to have, whether it's scholarship or an ability to deliberate or fairness or temperance, Sam has each of these to a highest degree."

Michael Barone explains why Sam Alito's Italian-American ancestry makes a filibuster unthinkable.

Everywhere you look in the world there are Muslims fighting with their neighbors, and despite France's eagerness to appease everyone in sight they don't seem to be able to stay on good terms with the enemy inside their own borders (as I wrote two years ago). Drudge reports that Parisian Muslims have been rioting for four nights straight, and the French government is struggling to respond and worrying more about who fired tear gas into a mosque than how to stop the violent mobs.

BOBIGNY, France (Reuters) -- Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday defended his tough crime policies against claims they helped increase tension after a fourth night of rioting in a Paris suburb in which tear gas was fired into a mosque.

It was not clear who had fired the tear gas and Sarkozy, addressing police officers, vowed to find out what had happened.

Youths hurled rocks and set fire to cars in the northeastern Clichy-sous-Bois suburb of the French capital, where many immigrants and poor families live in high-rise housing estates notorious for youth violence.

French television said six police officers were hurt and 11 people arrested in violence partly fueled by the incident at the mosque.

"Partly fueled by the incident at the mosque", except of course for the first three nights of rioting. As I wrote two years ago:

If anti-Americanism is the cough and fever, the cancer that is eating the country from the inside is its untenable socialist economy that props up its population of 5 million unemployed, unassimilated, uneducated Arab Muslim immigrants.

It takes two sides to make peace, but only one side to make war.

In the past, Iran's threats against Israel were more veiled, and mostly delivered in Arabic so that they escaped the notice of the Western media, but today Iran once again called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Governments around the world expressed shock and scorn Thursday at the Iranian president's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and several summoned Tehran's envoys in their capitals for a reprimand.

However, Israeli calls for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations over the remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were not immediately taken up by other nations.

In a speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Thursday called for Iran to be expelled from the U.N., saying "a state which calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the United Nations." Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Israel had not decided whether to ask officially for Iran's removal.

Israel's deputy ambassador to Britain, Zvi Rav-Ner, said it was unheard of for a U.N. member state to call "for genocide and wiping off of another member state of the U.N."

So yeah, it's pretty dangerous to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Are the "pacifists" who defended Saddam Hussein going to go play human shield for the Iranian mullahs? When is the world going to start taking Islamofacist threats seriously?

The good news just keeps on coming! There's not much to say about Miers' withdrawal of her nomination except that the President's explanation is terribly weak.

Bush, after weeks of insisting he did not want Miers to withdraw, blamed the Senate for her demise.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House _ disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," the president said shortly before leaving for Florida to assess hurricane damage.

Just like the Senate demanded for John Roberts! Who would've seen it coming? The real reason the nomination was withdrawn is that the withdrawal is slightly less humiliating for the President than an actual defeat in the Senate.

We're back from our honeymoon and I don't have a lot of motivation to post at the moment. We had a great time in San Luis Obispo staying at the Madonna Inn's Misty Rock Room, but it's great to be home.

I'm sure I'll get around to posting again soon, but as of right now I'm not even up on the news. Two good pieces I just saw are that the House passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, both of which aim to limit stupid lawsuits. The Senate apparently passed the former bill also, but supposedly won't have time for the latter.

Anyway, I've got a new wife to attend to. See ya!

Update:
Ok, here's a pic of us from our reception!

The day is finally here! I'm getting married to the most wonderful woman in the world -- perhaps in the whole universe!

President Bush is in Los Angeles for a fundraising trip and just about every local news source has been buzzing about the freeway closures his arrival and travel have required (for security purposes).

Bush was due to arrive in Los Angeles later Thursday for a two-day visit that includes a fundraiser in Beverly Hills to be attended by 100 couples, at which the Republican National Committee is expected to raise one million dollars, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Compared to the hundreds of thousands of man-hours lost to freeway closures during rush hour today and tomorrow, I think it would have been far more efficient for the city to simply write a check to the RNC for a million dollars and paid the President to stay away. The traffic he caused isn't doing anything to ingratiate the President or his party with the population of Los Angeles, I can tell you that much. I work in a pretty conservative industry, but many people at work were grumbling about the closed freeways this afternoon before they left for home.

Don't know where this is from, but a reader sent me a list of the 100 oldest currently-registered .com domains. I've had email addresses from a few of them.

I haven't written much short fiction in a while, but I hope to resume once I finish my PhD. I'd be flattered if you look a look through the whole archive there, and it's hard to which one to repost, but here's "The Corpulent King".

---

Once upon a time there was mean, fat king who loved nothing more than vast, sumptuous feasts. Lamb, veal, duck, venison, pheasant, caribou, sloth, spotted owl... the premier kitchen of the realm prepared his meals to his precise specifications, and no appetite was left unsatisfied. No, not merely unsatisfied -- unsatiated.

However, the corpulent king began to grow distressed. The bountiful banquets that once brought him such pleasure began to taste bland and boring. His chefs redoubled their efforts to find the most succulent beasts, the freshest vegetables, and the most stimulating spices -- but all of their attempts fell on tasteless buds.

The king fell into a deep depression, and refused all sustenance. His chefs tried everything to stir him from his melancholy, but even the most scrumptious sweets would drive the king to gasps and coughs. "I am a man of refined tastes," he exclaimed. "I cannot eat such filth."

Losing his expansive luster and driven to desperation, the king marshaled his fading will to live and announced a competition. "My chefs have failed me," he told his people. "Their food was not fit for sloping swine, but perhaps they will be. Consequently, there is a vacancy in my court that needs to be filled, as do I. Any man who can prepare a meal that is truly fit for a king will be lavishly rewarded."

The king's command attracted would-be chefs and were-in-fact charlatans by the cup, quart, and bushel. Day and night the aspirants toiled in the king's extravagant kitchens, presenting him with course after course of comely cookery such as the world has never known. But the king's malaise would not be dispelled, and he wasted away, surrounded by mountains of decaying delicacies.

One by one the rejected, dejected connoisseurs drifted away. Conceding defeat, they fled, fearing that they too might end up feeding the king's zoo after snatching defeat from the jaws of misery. The king despaired, but he retained one final resort. "If my enormous wealth can not buy my satisfaction," he said, "I have but one thing left to offer. If any man can gratify my culinary lusts, I'll give to him my daughter!"

The king's daughter was a beautiful young lady, who fortunately did not take after her father's gluttonous ways. Word spread quickly though the land that anyone who could renew the king's taste for life would marry the princess, and be made heir to the kingdom. Who would answer the call?

Every chef who heard the new pronouncement scoffed. "The king has eaten all there is to eat," they said. "Every animal, every plant, and every fungus has passed his palate; nothing remains to entice him from his ennui."

Every chef -- but one. One man who could not be tempted by wanton wealth, but only by the love of a kind and generous princess. "All those who have come before me," the man told the wan king, "were mere pretenders to the gastronomic throne; I am the master. If you are willing, I will prepare a savory extravaganza that is certain to satisfy."

"By all means!" the king commanded. "But how will you accomplish such a feat of a feast? Look around! I am surrounded by the comestible corpses of your predecessors."

"Fear not, O king," the confident cook replied. "I, and I alone, possess the secret ingredient that will titillate your tongue and resurrect your vanquished vigor. No no! You must sample it for yourself when I am finished. And then we will discuss the princess."

The king waited in eager anticipation while the cook prepared secretly in the kitchen. He dismissed all offers of assistance and labored alone, but his job was quickly completed. Smiling triumphantly, the cook ascended to the king's banquet room and presented his masterpiece: a delicious pie, still steaming from the oven. Without a word the king devoured the dessert -- every last crumb of crust and fleck of filling.

His plate sparkling, the king proclaimed, "I feel new life in my bones! Quickly, bake me another!"

"And my reward?" the chef inquired. The king demanded that his daughter be brought forthwith.

But the princess could not be found! In her quarters was the meager message: "I will not be fed to your ravenous maw."

"I'll give you anything! Money, power; all that I have and more! Anything you want! Sustain me, and all that I have is yours," begged the king of the cook. "Or else, I die!"

But the cook replied, "You have nothing left that I desire."

More than two years ago I posted about people who are disabled by their own fat and garnered quite a set of responses in the comments section. Thanks in large part to my efforts to draw attention to the matter scientists are finally on track to develop a fat vaccine, but let's take blast to the past and revisit fat from the year 2003.

---

As I start to write this, I'm not planning on making fat jokes, so if one creeps in, forgive me. I used to be overweight as a kid and a teenager, but I took control of my lifestyle when I was 18 and lost around 70 pounds over the course of a few years. I did it the old-fashioned way: by changing my diet, and by exercising. I don't have a lot of sympathy for fat people who act like they can't help being fat.

So then, "Overweight workers say they're often overlooked".

''This is one of the only groups where an employer could say, 'We don't want fat people,' and get away with it,'' said Massachusetts Representative Byron Rushing. ''Fat people are still targets. Professional comedians can still make fun of them, and fat jokes are still being passed around.'' ...

Protests by groups like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance as well as a flurry of recent lawsuits have led to greater awareness of the problems the overweight face in the workplace. Some of the lawsuits seek to create new legal ground by arguing that obesity ought to be seen as an impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

For the vast majority of fat people, their "disability" is not primarily physical: it's mental. The fat that hinders their activity is merely a symptom of their lack of self-discipline.

Yes, some people are biologically more inclined toward being fat than others -- so what? Some people are more likely to get addicted to alcohol than others, but when someone does become an alcoholic we still know it's their fault. Same with being fat. If your arm gets blown off by a terrorist, you're disabled. If you simply can't muster up the willpower to resist stuffing your face with creamy lard, you're just addicted to food. Also, comedians will make fun of you, because they're insensitive.

Unlike racial discrimination -- and even religious discrimination -- discrimination based on being fat is entirely within your control. It would be absurd to tell a black guy to lighten his skin (and it wouldn't gain him acceptance even if he did, *cough*Michael Jackson*cough*). But if people make fun of you for being fat, or for not knowing how to read, or for terrible body odor, or for having no sense of style... there's something you can do! Lose weight, get hooked on phonics, use deodorant, watch "Queer Eye".

Sixty-one percent of Americans are overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Of those, the CDC says 35 percent are moderately overweight and 26 percent are obese. The findings, from a National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, sounded an alarm when they were released in 2000, but the hubbub did little to change poor perceptions of overweight people or spur the creation of new laws.

Maybe the problem here is that so many Americans are fat. Don't you all realize that the Europeans are making fun of you? There are only two options: bomb Europe, or lose some weight. I'm impartial.

Look, America, I understand that food is yummy. Sometimes I want to eat a whole truckload of cheesecake, and it's really hard to resist. But guess what? I don't eat it. Sometimes I feel like sitting around on the couch all day, eating Fritos and watching the Simpsons. But guess what? I marshal my mental faculties, throw off the lethargy that so easily besets me, and I go out for a walk, or a run, or I lift some big metal plates up over my head. It's takes about 30 minutes. Then I go back and lie on the couch, watch Simpsons, and eat fruit or something.

While there is little data available detailing the extent of size bias, Deidra Everett, secretary of the New England Chapter of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, believes there have been a few changes in society's view of the overweight. ''Society has changed its image a little when it comes to smaller large people [huh? maybe "small or large"],'' Everett said. ''It is more accepted now that a woman can be a size 12 through 18 and still be fit. Also, in the media, the whole extreme leanness [trend] is not as popular as it was six or seven years ago. So, the media is trying to show that curves can be OK.''

No one has a problem with luscious curves, the problem is when your whole body is just one single curve. This is commonly called a "sphere", and it doesn't count as an affirmative answer for when people ask you whether or not you're "in shape".

At most workplaces, she said, little has changed. Everett, who, at 36, weighs 460 pounds and is 5 feet 10 inches, knows firsthand. She said prospective employers have pursued her aggressively over the phone, and then suddenly changed their minds after meeting her. Stunned by her appearance, the recruiter will scan her body, pausing at the fattest part, and then look away.

''Eventually, they'll get back to your face and give you this nervous smile that says, 'Oh, dear!' They don't know where to look. They become flustered and there is not a lot of eye contact,'' she said. ''I can't understand how people can be so judgmental without knowing who I am. It makes you feel terrible.''

Yes, people are mean. Heck, I've been mean in this very essay. I'm an anti-fattite, I guess. Until the Museum of Tolerance adds that new fat wing they've been planning, I recommend that if you find yourself in situations where people can't even look at you without becoming flustered and uncomfortable, you're probably too fat.

You should consider that maybe the problem isn't the genetic predisposition of humans to use peer pressure to discourage harmful behavior -- maybe the problem is you. Give in to the peer pressure. The negative, "terrible", feelings you're experiencing may be for your own good.

I was never as fat as Deidra Everett, but I suffered social consequences when I was overweight. Which do you think helped more?

1. "Hey baby, yeah I'm fat, but you'd go out with me if you weren't so judgemental without knowing who I am. It makes me feel terrible. Help me advance fat acceptance."

2. Lose weight.

If you guessed #2, you're right. You can't control what other people think, but you can control how fat you are. Instead of wasting time making pro-fat organizations, go to the gym. Stop eating twinkies. As our corporate masters say, "Just Do It".

Several times I've heard a story about airline policies designed to prevent flight crews made up entirely of Christians due to fear of losing planes in the event of Rapture. I never believed the story, and Snopes says that it's a urban legend, as I expected. However, it also claims that most Christians (in America? the world?) don't believe in the Rapture at all.

While many of those of the Christian faith may be unfamiliar with concept of the faithful suddenly disappearing from the face of the Earth, this belief permeates a number of fundamentalist branches of Christianity. Known as "The Rapture," it refers to a time when Jesus will return to claim the faithful, drawing Christians (both the still living and the already dead) up into the clouds to meet Him. It is said this event will be followed by seven years of famine, plagues, pestilence, and three world wars before the Savior returns, a time often referred to as "The Tribulation." ...

Those who believe in the Rapture hold as a tenet of faith the sudden celestial appearance of Christ at some future unknowable date, immediately Airplane followed by the irresistible summoning heavenward of all who follow His teachings. The faithful will be pulled towards the Christ the way iron filings are pulled towards a magnet, rendering the Earth depopulated of the godly and leaving the godless (or at least the Christ-rejecting) to battle their way through the horrors of this world's final seven years.

The Rapture interpretation of 1 Thessalonians is not shared by the majority of Christians and appears to date to 1909, when the Scofield Reference Bible (King James Version) was published. Prior to that time, this parsing of 1 Thessalonians' "caught up in the air" passage was unknown, although in the 18th century theologian J.N. Darby popularized the idea that there would be a "secret rapture" seven years before the Christ really returned, and the non-Christians who didn't disappear into the air would be left to face the anti-Christ.

I've never encountered the claim that the majority of Christians don't believe in the Rapture. Is that true?

More than a year-and-a-half ago I first posted about John Kerry's divorce, and as you can see from my top search word list it was a very popular topic for visitors. I doubt Kerry's past womanizing and gold-digging had much of an effect on the election, but there's no denying that people cared about the issue. Here's my original post.

---

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else, but am I the only one who thinks it's significant that John Kerry couldn't remain faithful to his first wife? Some people like to make a big deal about the "sanctity of marriage" with regards to gay marriage, but isn't Mr. Kerry's divorce in 1988 (after six years of separation) relevant to the same issue? What's more, the circumstances aren't particularly flattering for Mr. Kerry.

Most people seem to think Mr. Kerry's carousing in the 1980s isn't important, but for most of the decade he was still married.

During the period the Kerrys were separated, for instance, the senator apparently felt little constrained by his marital vows. Gossip columns at the time linked him to Morgan Fairchild, Cornelia Guest and even President Reagan's liberal daughter, Patti Davis. An upcoming Boston Globe expose will reportedly feature details of the Massachusetts Democrat's 1980s affair with a 25-year-old British reporter.

According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."

The epidemic of divorce in America (and around the world) absolutely dwarfs any threat posed to the sanctity of marriage by homosexuals.

If John Kerry couldn't keep the vows he made to his first wife, why does anyone think he'll make a trustworthy president? He hasn't done anything to acknowledge the divorce was wrong -- and I doubt he thinks it -- so there's no possibility that he's changed his mind over the years about the seriousness of keeping his word.

No one talks about it, of course, because the majority of marriages fail and no one wants to denounce a failure committed by so many people. There aren't many people with moral authority on this issue, which goes straight to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Everyone does it, so there's plenty of incentive for everyone to treat divorce lightly, as if it's of no consequence.

I think it's despicable and disgusting.

Update:
Rev. Sensing points out in the comments that the divorce rate isn't 50%, and he's right, although it's close. Here are some statistics I gathered last year on marriage and divorce that break the divorce rate down into various groupings.

1. Median duration of marriage (1997): 7.2 years
2. Likelihood of new marriages ending in divorce in 1997: 43%
3. Adults between 25 and 34 years old never married in 1998: 14 million (35%)
4. Percentage of population (by area of US) who had never married in 1999: Midwest: 28%, Northeast: 28%, South: 26%, West: 29%
5. People (by gender) 15 years of age and over who have never married: Males: 32,253,000 (31.3% of men), Females: 27,763,000 (25.1% of women)
6. Median age at first marriage: Males: 26.8, Females: 25.1
7. Average age of marriage [first marriage and later] in 1997: Males: 28.7, Females: 25.9
8. Percentage of people that married under the age of 20 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 40%
9. Percentage of people that married over the age of 25 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 24%
10. Percentage of women whose parents were divorced who get divorced within 10 years as of 1995: 43%
11. Percentage of women whose parents stayed together who get divorced within 10 years as of 1995: 29%
12. In 1996, children of divorce were 50% more likely than their counterparts from intact families to divorce.
13. Fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers.

Further, SS from Seldom Sober points to stats that show the divorce rate dropping.

Since 1990:
1991, 0.47%
1992, 0.48%
1993, 0.46%
1994, 0.46%
1995, 0.46%
1995, 0.43%
1997, 0.43%,
1998, 0.42%,
1999, 0.41%,
2000, 0.41%,
2001, 0.40%

That link has more info on how divorce rates are determined and how predictions are made. The standard "50% of marriages will end in divorce" meme comes from the Census Bureau and was reaffirmed in 2002.

My own prediction is that as baby boomers age and die the divorce rate will continue to drop. I predict that we Millennials will be more faithful to each other than our parents were. (Plus, fewer people may get married which could improve the divorce rate, depending on selection factors.)

Here's a post I wrote a year ago about why I'm tentatively in favor of allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, even though I'm otherwise pro-life. I'm not sure what the prevailing view among Christians is, but it's obvious to me that pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest are fundamentally different from pregnancies that result from negligence on the part of the mother or that are simply "inconvenient". In the latter cases the mother bears most of the responsibility for creating the baby inside her, but in the former she does not.

---

Three awful things that go terribly together. Regarding my tolerance of legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, Paul Hsieh from GeekPress asks the question some other readers brought up as well:

If you don't mind me putting you on the spot, I'm wondering how the rape-and-incest exception fits in with the rest of your views on the fetus being a human life worthy of legal protection.

I understand those pro-choicers who don't view the fetus as worthy of legal protection and hence allow unrestricted abortion through the end of 2nd trimester.

I understand those pro-lifers who view the fetus as worthy of legal protection, and would therefore forbid all abortions.

But I've never understood the position (which I know that some conservatives take) which would ban abortions except in the case of rape/incest. (For the sake of discussion, assuming that the fetus is healthy and would grow up to be a fully functioning adult). Is there something about the way the fetus was conceived that makes it murder to abort if the mother was not raped, but makes it not murder if the mother were raped? After all, the fetus is equally human and equally innocent (or equally not human/innocent depending on one's ideology) in both cases.

Good question. First off, many pro-lifers wouldn't make the exception, and I'm not sure if my position is in the majority or not. That said, the reason I would tolerate the abortion of healthy babies conceived through rape or incest is that unlike in the vast majority of pregnancies, in such cases the mother bears no responsibility for the conception. Whenever sex is voluntary there is a chance of pregnancy, no matter how remote, and by making the decision to have sex a woman is implicitly accepting the responsibility of handling whatever consequences may result; it isn't morally acceptable to kill another human being to spare yourself inconvenience brought about by your own actions. However, in cases of rape or incest where the woman does not consent, she does not bear any responsibility for the pregnancy and should not be legally required to carry the baby to term.

An imperfect analogy is the difference between finding someone tied to a train track and actually tying someone there yourself. If you find someone tied to a track you have no legal duty to untie them before they get hit. On the other hand, if you tie someone down and they get killed then you are a murderer.

Now, this sets aside the question of moral responsibility -- but the law and morality are different matters. I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest, but I don't necessarily think such abortions are desirable or morally acceptable. That's a more difficult question, and in general I think it would be best to tolerate the unasked-for inconvenience (and risk) of pregnancy in order to protect the life of the baby. However, I wouldn't force a woman to make that decision.

Update 041220 6:36pm
Many people don't get it. Forcing a hypothetical raped woman to carry her baby to term is akin to the police arbitrarily taking your wallet and giving it to the nearest homeless guy. You aren't responsible for him; if you choose to give him charity it may be noble, but society has no business forcing you to do so. In the case of the raped woman, society can't even do much to share the burden of the painful, traumatic, and difficult service she must render -- there is no one else capable of bearing her child but her, whereas the general populace can be taxed collectively to help a homeless man, thus reducing the burden on any specific person.

Is it morally right to help homeless people? Yes. Should you be forced at gunpoint to help homeless people? No. Is it morally right for a mother to carry to term a baby conceived through rape or incest? Yes. Should she be forced to do so at gunpoint? No. (And all laws are essentially coercive threats to enforce compliance with deadly force.)

Here's a post I wrote almost two years ago after my first application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon was rejected -- in my opinion, illegally. I suppose it comes across as rather harsh, especially considering that my police department does a generally excellent job protecting my community, but I was pretty upset about the unjust abridgement of my rights. Still am, to tell the truth.

---

Chief Port:

My name is Michael Williams, and I live in the city of Hawthorne, California. You recently reviewed and denied my application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

I am 26 years old, and have no criminal record of any sort. I have never been a party in a lawsuit, I have never been arrested, and I have not been in a fight since age 10. I have never been in a courtroom or appeared in front of a judge. I do not drink, I do not use drugs, and I have no psychological or mental problems that could cause me to act dangerously or irrationally. I am gainfully employed as an engineering consultant at Boeing Satellite Systems, and I own my own home. I am a Ph.D. candidate at UCLA, and serve actively in my local church.

As you are aware, there are a great many people in the city of Hawthorne and the surrounding communities who carry concealed handguns and have never bothered to go to their police chief to ask permission. I have no doubt that you and your officers encounter such people on a daily basis, and that you can attest to the fact that withholding permits from law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying weapons themselves. As you are aware, men and women intent on committing felonies are not concerned with obeying state laws on concealed carry.

On the other hand, I have a great respect for the law. I followed every appropriate procedure in my application for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I provided you with an exemplary "good cause" statement, which unfortunately I cannot make available here, as it would compromise my safety. I went to the police station twice to obtain and return the application, and I waited at the DMV for two hours in order to get you a copy of my most recent driving record. I studied for the required Handgun Safety Certification test and passed with a perfect score. I purchased my handgun legally from a federally licensed dealer, and provided you with the serial number. I disclosed to you my place of residence, my occupation, the details of my employment, and every other piece of information required by law.

And yet, after all that, you denied my application for a CCW without giving any reason or justification -- nothing but a verbal notification. None of the criminals who carry weapons illegally and have the power to directly threaten my life and the lives of my friends and family have followed any of these procedures, and nothing substantial prevents them from carrying.

Nothing you or your officers can do will protect me if I am faced with an armed assailant, because no assailant will assault me in your presence. It is little comfort to me that you may possibly catch him after the fact, because I'll already be kidnapped, injured, or dead. By your direct and individual action you have withheld from me the power to defend my own life, and have forced me to become a victim-in-waiting for anyone with criminal intentions. You have condemned me to be the prey of every miscreant, thug, gangster, drug dealer, robber, kidnapper, and outlaw our society produces. By the very fact that I respect the law, you have enslaved me to the worst of humanity. Does your wife carry a concealed weapon, or do you send her out to the wolves defenseless as well?

You had complete legal discretion over my application, and if any evil is perpetrated against me my blood will be on your hands. If I am attacked and wounded, be assured that you will receive a call from me as soon as I am able to hold a phone. If I am killed my family will notify you, and I hope you will remember this letter.

You have robbed me of my dignity, and consigned me walk the streets in perpetual weakness and fear.

Indignantly,
Michael Williams

Update:
I'm considering filing a Freedom of Information Act request for documentation of all the CCWs the Hawthorne Police Department has issued for the past five years. Here's the letter I have so far, which I built from a template at the excellent site: www.equalccw.com.

Update 2:
Further adventures.

Looks like these people are ready to join the Karl Rove Fan Club!

Rove's wife, Darby, raised the white garage door one morning last week to show journalists outside the million-dollar brick home that the deputy chief of staff, assistant to the president and senior adviser wasn't home. All the interest came on the eve of his testimony Friday before a grand jury investigating who in the White House might have revealed the identity of a CIA operative.

There was no car in the garage. And the stuff left behind turned out not to be much different from what gathers dust inside most American garages.

The inventory, seen from outside:

_Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.

_What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.

_A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.

_A tall aluminum ladder.

_A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.

_Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.

_In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.

_Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.

Where are boxes 1, 2, 3, and 5?!?! It's time for Congressional hearings! What's in the "FRAGILE" wooden crate? WMDs? Why two ladders? Where has Karl been climbing?!