Thursday, August 7, 2014


News Clips For The Day


What do Americans say should happen to child border crossers?
CBS NEWS August 7, 2014, 6:59 AM
By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

When asked what should happen to the Central American children who have recently crossed the border into the U.S. illegally, 50 percent of Americans say they should be returned to their home country as soon as possible, while 43 percent think these children should stay in the U.S. while awaiting an immigration hearing, according to a new CBS News poll.

Most Republicans think the children should be returned to their home countries, while most Democrats think they should be allowed to stay and go through a hearing process.

The poll included an additional sample of Hispanics, in order to examine their views more fully. Among Hispanics, fully 69 percent think the children should stay in the U.S. while awaiting a hearing.

Congress left Washington for summer recess last week without reaching an agreement on how to deal with this issue. Two-thirds of Americans support legislation that would make it easier and faster to send these children back to their home countries. Support for this measure reaches 80 percent among Republicans, although majorities across the political spectrum support this, as do 54 percent of Hispanics.

Still, most Americans would support temporary housing in their community to help house children from Central America. Seventy percent of Democrats would favor this, but 59 percent of Republicans would not.

The poll tested views of the effectiveness of two measures to help reduce the number of children entering the U.S. Seventy-six percent of Americans think stricter border control would be at least somewhat effective, while a smaller majority - 58 percent - think the U.S. working with Central America to help reduce violence in those countries would be effective.

Hispanics' Views of the President

Hispanics overwhelmingly voted for Democrat Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and they give him a positive overall job rating in this poll - 54 percent of Hispanics approve of the job he is doing as president.

But Hispanics aren't as positive about the president's handling of immigration. Fewer than half approve of the job he's doing on that issue (41 percent), although that's still higher than the 29 percent approval rating the president receives from non-Hispanic Americans.

The Political Parties

According to the poll, Hispanics are more inclined to identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans, so perhaps not surprisingly, they hold much more favorable views of the Democratic Party (57 percent) than the Republican Party (27 percent). More than six in 10 Hispanics have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.

Most Hispanics (64 percent) prefer a bigger government that provides more services, while Americans overall (including non-Hispanics) prefer a smaller government with fewer services.

Majorities of Hispanics would like to see both parties (but especially the Republican Party) do more to address the needs and concerns of Hispanics.

But do partisans think they should do more to reach out to Hispanics? Just 27 percent of self-identified Republicans think their party should do more, compared to 42 percent of Democrats who say that about their own party.

Hispanics also see the Democrats as doing a better job than the Republicans on some key issues. They choose the Democratic Party as doing a better job on immigration (55-24 percent) and the economy (50-32 percent), as well as sharing their values (56-26 percent). On the issue of national security, Hispanics rate the parties somewhat more evenly (40 percent Democratic, 36 percent Republican).

Voting and the Midterm Elections

Voter registration rates are lower among Hispanics compared to the public overall. About half of Hispanics in the poll (51 percent) are registered to vote, and 53 percent of them say they will definitely vote in the elections for Congress this November. Among registered voters nationwide, 68 percent say they will definitely vote this fall.

And they would overwhelmingly choose a Democratic candidate. Among Hispanic registered voters, 54 percent would vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the election were held today, while 23 percent would support the Republican.

But Hispanic voters aren't especially enthusiastic about voting this November; 56 percent say they are less enthusiastic compared to past Congressional elections.

Hispanic voters are also less likely to be paying attention to news about the 2014 elections, at least so far. Fifty percent of Hispanic voters are currently paying at least some attention to the campaign, compared to 64 percent of voters overall.

More than half of Americans think there will be a Hispanic president in their lifetime, and Hispanic Americans are even more likely to think that - 66 percent believe that will happen.

Immigration: A Rising Concern

In the wake of the large number of Central American children crossing the U.S. border, the percentage of Americans who volunteer immigration as the country's most pressing problem has spiked since the spring, and is now second, after the economy and jobs.

Thirteen percent volunteer immigration as the nation's top problem, up from just 3 percent in March, and it is now at a level of concern not seen since 2006, when immigration reform was being hotly debated in Washington.

Among Hispanics, 22 percent say immigration is the most important problem facing the country; almost as many as cite the economy and jobs (27 percent).

When asked specifically about illegal immigration, 62 percent of Americans, including 56 percent of Hispanics and 63 percent of non-Hispanics, say it is a very serious problem for the country.

In addition, most think it's very important for the president and Congress to address the issue by the end of the year.

Americans continue to support legal status for illegal immigrants who are currently in the U.S., including more than half who support a path to citizenship. But that percentage rises to 70 percent among Hispanics; just half of non-Hispanics favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.

While Americans think securing the border should take priority over addressing the status of illegal immigrants already in the country, Hispanics are more divided.

Large majorities, including 93 percent of Hispanics and three in four non-Hispanics, support a path to citizenship for those who came to the U.S. illegally as children if certain requirements are met.

And while 38 percent of Americans think in general immigrants improve U.S. society in the long run, far more Hispanics (60 percent) think immigrants have a positive impact.

Hispanics See Opportunities in the U.S.

Hispanics have a mostly positive outlook regarding their own opportunities to succeed in the U.S, and are optimistic about the future for the next generation of their family. Those born outside the United States are particularly so.

Fifty-five percent of Hispanics say their opportunities to succeed in life are better than their parents' generation, compared to 42 percent of Americans overall.

Similarly, Hispanics (40 percent) are more inclined than the public at large (23 percent) to feel better about their family's future.

Hispanics born outside the U.S. feel a strong connection to America. By an overwhelming margin, these Hispanics say they feel closer to the U.S. than to their native country.

Other Issues

Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, more Americans have disapproved than approved of it, but more than half of Hispanics (52 percent) support the health care law.

Hispanics are somewhat less permissive than Americans overall when it comes to the issue of abortion. While about a third (36 percent) of Americans think abortion should be generally available, this drops to a quarter (26 percent) among Hispanics. Also, just 26 percent of Americans overall think abortion should not be permitted, rising to 42 percent among Hispanics.

Hispanics are more in step with a majority of Americans on the issue of same sex marriage. More Hispanics think same-sex marriage should be legal (50 percent) than not legal (44 percent). Fifty-four percent of non-Hispanics think it should be legal, compared to 39 percent who say it shouldn't be.

As is the case with the public overall, younger Hispanics are more likely than those who are older to support same-sex marriage.

Among Hispanics, views on these issues differ depending on whether they were born in this country, or immigrated here from somewhere else. Those born in the U.S. are more supportive of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. On the health care law, Hispanics born outside the U.S. are more likely to approve of it, while those born here are more divided.




Fifty percent of Americans want illegal immigrant children deported immediately, while 43 percent say they should stay long enough to have hearings on their status, except for Hispanics who, at a sixty percent ratio, think the children should have hearings. Legislation to expedite their deportation is desired by two thirds of all Americans, fifty-four percent of Hispanics and eighty percent of Republicans. Temporary housing in local communities is supported by “most Americans,” particularly by Democrats. Of measures to control the influx of children from Central America, 76% want tighter border control while 58% see the need to work with governments in Central American countries. On liberal/conservative issues such as the size of government and the services it provides, Hispanics are more liberal the most Americans. A similar split occurs on the Affordable Care Act in particular. Hispanics tend to be less liberal than American Democrats on abortion, but a little more liberal on same sex marriage, surprisingly. On the subjects of same sex marriage and abortion, those born in the US are more liberal, but on the Affordable Care Act, those born in the US are less in favor of it. It was interesting that “more than half of Americans” think there will be an Hispanic president in the US within their lifetime, and 66% of Hispanics think so.

The Hispanic community are not as overwhelmingly liberal as I would have thought, but it is true that they are probably more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. Democrats, when polled, thought that their party should do more to induce Hispanics to join their ranks, while Republicans overwhelmingly did not. Republicans just aren't as open to people of different backgrounds as Democrats are. Republicans are more interested in grabbing a larger share of the white Americans than they now have. I think as long as the economic divide exists between the two parties, they won't get most of the poor to middle class young Americans and women. However, as long as racial issues brew, they will get more of the white men, especially in the South and the West and especially among white Evangelical Protestants.

I was surprised by the number of Americans who are not strongly behind the goal of supporting more effective governments in Central America, as that is clearly the main cause of the influx of immigrants. I have to agree that we do need more effective, and perhaps more rigid, border control as well. The US hasn't invested as much aid in South America as it has in the Middle East, though, so we should spread out the giving more, especially since those countries are closer to our borders, and if they ever happened to become militantly opposed to us as al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. have done, they would be an even worse threat. The Hispanics coming across just want a job, not to slit our throats or rob us. I also just think the Central American countries “deserve” our help more because they are basically peaceful people as compared to the groups that are emerging in North Africa and the Middle East. When they come here, most of them are not criminals, but ready to take a job and become a lawful citizen. I fear that too many of the Islamic people who come here to live retain ties to their homeland including to al Qaeda. I don't trust the Islamic immigrants as much.







Off California, cargo ships get paid to go slow – CBS
By BRUCE KENNEDY MONEYWATCH August 7, 2014, 5:30 AM

A new program involving huge freighters in the waters off Southern California is offering companies cash incentives to slow down their vessels in the hopes of both reducing air pollution and protecting endangered whales from fatal collisions with those ships.

The trial program, sponsored by a group of government, nonprofit and marine industry organizations, covers commercial freighters in the Santa Barbara Channel, a busy, 130-mile-long shipping lane that's also a feeding ground for many species of whales.

According to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, one of the groups involved in the program, participating companies will get $2,500 per ship transiting through the channel if their vessels stay at speeds of 12 knots or less, instead of the usual 14 to 18 knots.

Air pollution is a major issue for the region. The crude oil that oceangoing ships use as fuel is hundreds of times dirtier than the diesel fuel used in highway trucks. And air pollution from those ships accounts for over half of the nitrogen oxides -- the ozone-forming smog -- found in California's Santa Barbara County.

"Few people realize that ships off our coast, especially those moving at faster speeds, are a risk to endangered whales and the quality of the air we breathe," Kristi Birney of the Environmental Defense Center said in a statement. The L.A. Times reports that six multinational shipping companies, COSCO, Hapag Lloyd, K Line, Maersk Line, Matson and United Arab Shipping, are taking part in the speed-reduction incentive program, which is patterned after a similar program in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

Shipping is a huge business along the West Coast and, with globalization, growing larger each year. Over $300 billion worth of cargo passes annually through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in Southern California, and an estimated 3 million supply-chain-related jobs across the U.S.

The program has enough funding to pay incentives for 16 shipping transits through the Santa Barbara Channel until the end of October. The coalition supporting the trial program is looking for additional funding to expand it.





“The trial program, sponsored by a group of government, nonprofit and marine industry organizations, covers commercial freighters in the Santa Barbara Channel, a busy, 130-mile-long shipping lane that's also a feeding ground for many species of whales.... The crude oil that oceangoing ships use as fuel is hundreds of times dirtier than the diesel fuel used in highway trucks. And air pollution from those ships accounts for over half of the nitrogen oxides -- the ozone-forming smog -- found in California's Santa Barbara County.” Long Beach and Los Angeles already have such a program for their waters. It is funded by Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and “a group of government, nonprofit and marine industry organizations,” and according to Kristi Birney of the Environmental Defense Center there are already six multinational companies which are participating in the plan. The group has funding sufficient to pay out incentives through October, and is looking for more in the future. The manatees on the southern coast of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico have the same problem. Boat strikes kill numerous manatees every year and they are already endangered. I'm glad to see this effort in California to make a difference for the whales, and to prevent the development of heavy smog. Alliances between citizens and big business to alleviate some of the problems of our modern world are possible, at least in some cases.





http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ebola-serum-20140804-story.html

Mystery Ebola virus serum manufactured by San Diego firm
LA Times
By MONTE MORIN
August 4, 2014

An experimental serum given to Christian aid workers infected with the deadly Ebola virus was manufactured by a San Diego pharmaceutical firm using plants, the company and U.S. health authorities disclosed Monday.

As Dr. Kent Brantly fights for his life in a special containment unit at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, and missionary Nancy Writebol prepares to be evacuated from Liberia on Tuesday, details began to emerge about a mysterious treatment they were given shortly after they became infected.

The drug, which was produced by Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., is called ZMapp and has not been evaluated for safety in humans, according to a company statement.

"As such, very little of the drug is currently available," said company President Larry Zeitlin in a statement.

The drug is a cocktail of three "humanized" monoclonal antibodies that are manufactured in a group of fragrant plants or bushes known by the genus name Nicotiana.

Monoclonal antibodies fight viral invaders by locking onto antigens - projections on the surface of a virus that are used to cling to and then enter target cells in the body.

In the case of the Ebola virus, these antigens project like spikes from the virus' long, spaghetti-like body.

Once these antigens lock onto the surface of a cell, the virus enters and uses the host cell's machinery to begin mass-producing copies of itself. Antibodies, which can be produced by the immune system or administered as a drug, thwart the ability of antigens to lock onto target cells.

A CNN report that the drug had prompted a "miraculous" recovery and that Brantly's condition improved within an hour after treatment was greeted with skepticism by longtime Ebola virus researchers.

"I would be ecstatic if Larry's product helped save these people, but I also need to be extremely cautious," said Thomas Geisbert, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

"To say the whole thing cleared up in an hour, that doesn't happen in reality," Geisbert said. "That's like something that happens in a movie."

Ebola virus infection typically begins with flu-like symptoms, such as achy muscles, fever and malaise. As the disease progresses, patients suffer bleeding, rashes, vomiting and diarrhea. If the patients do not receive proper medical care, they can suffer deadly organ failure from the loss of fluids.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said the company had manufactured only three "courses" of the drug, and that two of them were provided to the American patients.

"This was the first time it was put into humans, because all the previous work was done on animals and the results had been encouraging," Fauci said.

Fauci said it was hard to say whether or not the medication had been effective. "If you ask Sanjay Gupta, he says the effect was dramatic, but when you have one patient, you have nothing to compare it to. You can't make a definitive statement," Fauci said.

Fauci's agency provided a statement Monday describing how the drug came to be administered to Brantly and Writebol.

The Christian aid organization Samaritan's Purse had contacted U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials in Liberia to discuss the status of experimental treatments they were aware of, the statement said.

Those officials referred the aid group to a National Institutes of Health scientist who was assisting in the Ebola outbreak response in West Africa.

"The scientist was able to informally answer some questions and referred them to appropriate company contacts," the statement read. "She was not officially representing NIH and NIH did not have an official role in procuring, transporting, approving or administering the experimental products."

Though some have criticized the decision to transport Brantly and Writebol to the U.S. for treatment, fearing that it would cause the disease to spread here, officials say it is "extraordinarily unlikely."

Proper hospital procedures will keep the virus isolated, they say, and afford the two patients care that will enable their bodies to fight off the virus.

There is no vaccine or cure for Ebola. The virus has a mortality rate as high as 90%, depending on the strain. It is transmitted through bodily fluids, but not through the air, experts say.

Follow @montemorin for science news




Two American missionaries are waiting to see if they will recover from Ebola. “... a mysterious treatment they were given shortly after they became infected … was produced by Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., is called ZMapp and has not been evaluated for safety in humans, according to a company statement.” There is only a very small supply available at this time. It consists of a cocktail of 'humanized monoclonal antibodies ( “an antibody produced by a single clone of cells or cell line and consisting of identical antibody molecules”) manufactured in the nicotinia plant.” Tobacco is a form of nicotinia. “Antibodies, which can be produced by the immune system or administered as a drug, thwart the ability of antigens to lock onto target cells....” Fauci said it was hard to say whether or not the medication had been effective, and only three batches were made, two of which were given to the missionaries. Clearly, if this treatment does work, though, they need to make a great deal more of it and give it to those who contract the disease.

“Thomas Geisbert, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston said, 'To say the whole thing cleared up in an hour, that doesn't happen in reality. That's like something that happens in a movie.'” Geisbert is disputing the CNN claim of a “miracle” cure. According to this article, CNN didn't say that “the whole thing cleared up in an hour.” It said that there was progress in an hour. I think we should wait and watch to see whether the two missionaries are actually cured, and if they are, manufacture more of the drug and give it only to people who are already infected with Ebola, because even if the drug is dangerous to uninfected humans, those people who have developed symptoms are already under a death sentence. It's worth the risk. Sera and blood transfusions from recovered Ebola victims have also been demonstrated to help. Even if they don't have enough serum or blood for all Ebola patients, they should use what the do have to cure some of the people. I understand Geisbert's point, but letting the disease run rampant out of an excessive caution is foolish to me.






Horses use eyes and ears to communicate, study finds
CBS NEWS August 6, 2014, 5:32 PM

Just as facial expressions are important in human communication, horses are also sensitive to the expressions of other horses, a new study finds.

But unlike humans, equine expression is not limited solely to their face. The study, published in the journal Current Biology, found a horse's ears play a key role.

Previous studies done to investigate communication between animals focused on the same cues humans often use, such as eye gaze. Rather than generalize communication cues for all animals based on humans, researchers Jennifer Wathan and Karen McComb wanted to investigate other cues that animals might use.

"We found that in horses their ear position was also a crucial visual signal that other horses respond to. In fact, horses need to see the detailed facial features of both eyes and ears before they use another horse's head direction to guide them," Wathan explained in a press release.

In the experiment, she and McComb, both of the University of Sussex, took photographs of horses while the animals were paying attention to something. These images were then enlarged to life-size and used to test which parts were most important to other horses. Some of the photos had their ears obscured, while others had their eyes covered. The researchers then placed the photos near two feeding buckets for other horses to see.

What they found was that horses would look the longest when the whole head was visible; they looked less when the eyes and ears in the photo were covered. In addition, the orientation of the model horse's head and body mattered too.

This study challenges the long-held belief that animals with eyes to the side could not glean information from eye gaze.

"Horses display some of the same complex and fluid social organization that we have as humans and that we also see in chimpanzees, elephants, and dolphins," Wathan said.




On a cable TV documentary about five years ago, there was a true life “horse whisperer” who took on horses with problematic behaviors and by “communication” with them using his body language, he retrained them to make them reliable mounts. He observed the horses as he paced them around him in a circle on a long rope lead and when they were among themselves, seeing things like ear and tail position as they communicated with themselves. He then imitated their bodily postures to tell them that he was friendly, but also that he was their leader. People who train dogs talk about the need to establish themselves as dominant in order to gain obedience. Horses, likewise, if they discover that their rider has no control or is afraid, may behave badly and they can be dangerous. This particular trainer didn't use a whip, but rather gently communicated friendship and the nature of the behavior that he wanted the horse to do. When he had the horse sufficiently gentled and retrained, he would give it back to its owner and train the owner in how to deal with his horse in the future. People paid him handsomely for this service. It was a very interesting show.





More insider attacks follow killing of U.S. general in Afghanistan – CBS
AP August 6, 2014, 7:48 PM

KABUL, Afghanistan - As U.S. officials prepared to fly home the body of a two-star Army general who was killed by an Afghan soldier, there were two new so-called insider attacks targeting Afghan security forces, officials said Wednesday.

In the deadlier of the two attacks, an Afghan police officer killed seven of his colleagues at a checkpoint, then stole their weapons and fled in a police car late Tuesday in the Uruzgan provincial capital of Tirin Kot, provincial spokesman Doost Mohammad Nayab said.

A doctor at a local hospital told The Associated Press it appeared the police officer drugged his colleagues before the shooting. The doctor spoke on condition of anonymity as he wasn't authorized to release the information. Nayab later denied that the police officers had been drugged and said the officer involved had Taliban connections, without elaborating.

In Paktia province, an Afghan police guard exchanged fire with NATO troops near the governor's office, provincial police said. The guard was killed in the gunfight.

Meanwhile, the investigation into Tuesday's killing of Maj. Gen. Harold Greene was focused on a lone Afghan soldier known by the single name Rafiqullah. He was killed in a shootout following the attack.

An Afghan official said the soldier had joined the Afghan army more than two years ago, and came from an area that is known to harbor fighters from the Haqqani network. It has strong links to the Taliban and carries out attacks against U.S. Forces.

Meanwhile, NATO said Greene's body was being prepared Wednesday to be flown to the U.S. via Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.




This story is all bad news. I wonder if Americans and Afghans have made any real progress against the Taliban after all. It seems to me that the Afghans need to select their army and police officers more carefully. Rafiqullah came from “an area known to harbor fighters from the Haqqani netework … strong links to the Taliban and carries out attacks against US Forces.” It must be hard to serve in an area where you literally never know what moment will bring an attack or who to trust.





Rich Kid, Poor Kid: For 30 Years, Baltimore Study Tracked Who Gets Ahead
by JUANA SUMMERS
August 07, 2014

Education is historically considered to be the thing that levels the playing field, capable of lifting up the less advantaged and improving their chances for success.

"Play by the rules, work hard, apply yourself and do well in school, and that will open doors for you," is how Karl Alexander, a Johns Hopkins University sociologist, puts it.

But a study published in June suggests that the things that really make the difference — between prison and college, success and failure, sometimes even life and death — are money and family.

Alexander is one of the authors of "The Long Shadow," which explored this scenario: Take two kids of the same age who grew up in the same city — maybe even the same neighborhood. What factors will make the difference for each?

To find the answer, the Hopkins researchers undertook a massive study. They followed nearly 800 kids in Baltimore — from first grade until their late-20s.

They found that a child's fate is in many ways fixed at birth — determined by family strength and the parents' financial status.

The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor.

Just 33 children — out of nearly 800 — moved from the low-income to high-income bracket. And a similarly small number born into low-income families had college degrees by the time they turned 28.

We traveled to Baltimore to spend time with two of the people whom Alexander and the team tracked for nearly three decades. Here are their stories:

Monica Jaundoo Of Parkville, Md.

Monica Jaundoo didn't have an easy life growing up in Baltimore in the early '80s.

"I remember being so immune to death, so immune to shootings, killings. I just remember wanting them to rush, like, get the body out the way so we can get back to playing hopscotch or dodgeball," she says.

Things weren't just bad outside in her neighborhood. Life at home was rough, too.

"It was like really hot. No air conditioning. Barely gas and electric," she recalls. "It was rodents. It was just very miserable."

In addition, Jaundoo's parents have long struggled with drugs and alcohol. And she says her older brothers still do.

"They've spent pretty much all their life being incarcerated," Jaundoo says of her brothers. "It was a very long time before either one of them were at home at the same time."

In many ways, Jaundoo's story is typical of the children the researchers followed. She didn't go away to college. She barely got out of Baltimore — just about 10 miles to Parkville, Md.

And so her story raises a question: How can a child with the deck stacked against her get out and get ahead?

In her case, it did happen.

"When I had my son, I knew right off the bat I wanted things to be different for him," she says.

Though in her own childhood Jaundoo didn't have the advantages of money or the most supportive family, as a parent she was determined her son and daughter would have both.

She's got a steady job that pays well, managing sleep studies, she says. She's in a strong relationship and plans to get married.

And her children — Romeo, 17, and 8-year-old Makai — are both on the honor roll. Makai's in a gifted and talented program, and Romeo's looking at colleges. He doesn't know here he's going quite yet, but plans to major in environmental protection.

Jaundoo prides herself on having been candid with her children. She says they're astonished when they hear the stark differences between the way she grew up and their childhood.

"My mom tells me about the stories how she used to live in her childhood, and I like this better," says 8-year-old Makai. "Because, like, she gives me support on stuff, and I enjoy ... how it is."

If the Hopkins report is any indication, Makai and Romeo have a far better shot at future success than their mother did.

John Houser Of Baltimore, Md.

Growing up the son of a sprinkler-fitter, you learn a lot of things. But mostly, the value of hard work, John Houser tells us.

"You work. You don't complain, you don't take days off," he says. "If you are sick enough, take a day off, but make sure you come back immediately."

He grew up surrounded by a big, tight-knit family. Grandparents, an aunt and an uncle all lived within a couple of blocks. He remembers regular trips out to Baltimore County to visit his cousins.

Houser didn't realize it at the time, but he thinks his parents did a pretty good job with him.

"There comes a point where ... it was even before I had a kid, you realize they did a damn good job, and they actually did care more than you ever, ever realized, and that's a powerful thing when you realize that," he says.

"That's one of those moments where you grab the phone. 'Mom? Thanks.' 'For what?' 'Just thanks. I'm alive. You kept me alive.' "

Houser went off to college at Frostburg State University, but he watched friends who grew up on the same blocks turn to drugs.

"A couple of us are dead. ... We actually just had a buddy die from a heart attack, which is terrifying; he was 37, 38." He pauses, remembering a friend who died 20 years ago this summer, from drugs.

Houser says he only smoked marijuana, but many of his friends didn't stop there. So how did he avoid going down the same road?

"You see what happens. You see friends' mothers start 'tricking,' or you see how they change, like, in a few months. They turn into skeletons. They turn into slaves. It's horrifying," he says.

Racial Disparities

Houser's story reflects another facet of the Johns Hopkins study. The researchers found that more affluent white men in the study reported the highest frequency of drug abuse and binge drinking, yet they still had the most upward mobility.

"The extent of what we refer to as problem behavior is greatest among whites and less so among African-Americans," Alexander says. "Whites of advantaged background had the highest percentages who did all three of those things — that was binge drinking, any drug use and heavy drug use."

These numbers, from Alexander's research, show the racial disparities in men with similar drug problems and arrest records:

At age 22, 89 percent of white high school dropouts were working, compared with 40 percent of black dropouts. And by age 28, 41 percent of white men born into low-income families had criminal convictions, compared with 49 percent of the black men from similar backgrounds.

Houser says he understands how some young men turn to crime. He knows how the appeal of quick money and nice cars and clothes compares with slinging burgers and fries for a few bucks an hour.

"You just gotta believe that somewhere down the line it's gonna pay off," he says.

And for Houser, it has. He's a graphic designer and a freelance writer. His 3-year-old son, also named John, will soon start attending the city's schools, not far from the home Houser has owned for more than a decade in Baltimore's Canton neighborhood.

"He's amazing; he's smart; he's funny. He's fearless," Houser says.

Children "change your life because you have to change. If you don't change, you're gonna be a terrible parent, and you know you can't be that," he says. "So you change, and they change you, and you try to change them, try to get them ready for society."



http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/06/02/karl-alexander-long-shadow-research
Study: Children's life trajectories largely determined by family they are born into
Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander and his fellow researchers tracked 790 Baltimore schoolchildren for a quarter century
Jill Rosen / June 2, 2014

In a groundbreaking study, Johns Hopkins University researchers followed nearly 800 Baltimore schoolchildren for a quarter of a century, and discovered that their fates were substantially determined by the family they were born into.

"A family's resources and the doors they open cast a long shadow over children's life trajectories," Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander says in a forthcoming book, The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth, and the Transition to Adulthood. "This view is at odds with the popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune."

Through repeated interviews with the children and their parents and teachers, the research team observed the group as its members made their way through elementary, middle, and high school; joined the work force; and started families. The book, Alexander's fourth and final one culled from the project's data, details how the children's first years of life ultimately colored their success as adults.

The project was supposed to last only three years. Calling it the "beginning school study," the researchers had hoped to better understand how early home life helped some children successfully acclimate to first grade. But along the way Alexander and his team realized they had the foundation for something bigger—to watch the children's life trajectories unfold. And in most cases, they unfolded much as their parents' had.

Only 33 children moved from birth families in the low-income bracket to the high-income bracket as young adults; if family had no bearing on children's mobility prospects, almost 70 would be expected. And of those who started out well off, only 19 dropped to the low-income bracket, a fourth of the number expected.

"The implication is where you start in life is where you end up in life," Alexander said. "It's very sobering to see how this all unfolds. Almost none of the children from low-income families made it through college .... Among those who did not attend college, white men from low-income backgrounds found the best-paying jobs … White women from low-income backgrounds benefit financially from marriage and stable live-in partnerships … Better-off white men were most likely to abuse drugs.”

Under that final category the author explains: “Better-off white men had the highest self-reported rates of drug use, binge drinking, and chronic smoking, followed in each instance by white men of disadvantaged families; in addition, all these men reported high levels of arrest. At age 28, 41 percent of white men—and 49 percent of black men—from low-income backgrounds had a criminal conviction, but the white employment rate was much higher. The reason, Alexander says, is that blacks don't have the social networks whites do to help them find jobs despite these roadblocks.”




I would love to see, after reading that last paragraph, what the psychological effects of privilege are. Are depression, guilt or feeling disconnected some of the things that are produced? Or is the fact that they are men and ruled by that controversial hormone testosterone the main problem? It reminds me of the news story a few months ago about a very bad teenaged boy who was defended in court as being formed by “affluenza.” That was actually used as an excuse and allowed by the judge, who gave him a very light sentence on a murder conviction. I think it's a truly shocking judicial decision, and a terrible precedent.

“Education is historically considered to be the thing that levels the playing field, capable of lifting up the less advantaged and improving their chances for success. 'Play by the rules, work hard, apply yourself and do well in school, and that will open doors for you,' is how Karl Alexander, a Johns Hopkins University sociologist, puts it. But a study published in June suggests that the things that really make the difference — between prison and college, success and failure, sometimes even life and death — are money and family.... They found that a child's fate is in many ways fixed at birth — determined by family strength and the parents' financial status. The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor. Just 33 children — out of nearly 800 — moved from the low-income to high-income bracket. And a similarly small number born into low-income families had college degrees by the time they turned 28.”

What do privileged kids get that poor kids don't? The joy of having “bling,” greater financial security,a higher peer status, a higher self esteem perhaps, higher family expectation, higher self-expectations, probably more support day to day from parents and teachers, usually a higher level of general knowledge and vocabulary, more access to school related activities (it is now necessary for kids to pay to participate in school sports in many cases), generally a less dogmatic and restrictive upbringing by parents, the educational benefits of travel and exposure to the arts, good table manners and greater social ease, new clothes for school every year.

If I were to sit here long enough I could probably think of even more things. At some point, however, a kid has to proceed forward in life on his own, and if he is reasonably happy and satisfied with the level of wealth that he has inherited, he will probably be positive enough and energetic enough to achieve some things. I learned early that not all wealthy people are happy, not all poor people are sad, and if I would sit down with my books and study I would do pretty well in school. I got a scholarship to college. At the end of one year I decided that my life would end if I didn't get married. I did, and we moved to UNC at Chapel Hill, where I had some part time jobs and studied part time. I got my degree after six years.

When it came time for me to go to work after college, I discovered that I was timid about asking for raises, and shy about socializing on the job or anywhere else. I also was not always conscious of the need to advance in the company, in other words I wasn't very ambitious. I tended to live day to day, as I still do today. I just don't have to be trying to get ahead now and I have a guaranteed income. As a result of being shy, I didn't “network” to find the chances for increasing job opportunities, press harder all the time to upgrade my skills, or ingratiate myself with those in power, so that I never made very much money on my jobs. My library jobs were the best paid, the most interesting and exercised my acquired education the most.

It is a fact that I came from a family in which only the father worked and he had a specialized but not professional position as a lumber inspector. He had to observe the wood planks at the furniture factory and grade them for suitability for buying. He traveled throughout the south buying lumber. As such it was a responsible job, but it was a dead end. He never had a chance of going to college and expected no more of himself. He was physically tough and enjoyed manual labor. He always enjoyed his garden, which he dug by hand after having a farmer to bring his horse out to plow the twenty or so rows. I must say his garden was always magnificent and we ate well. He was fairly content in his life.

As I drew on his example in my expectations of myself, I always wanted primarily to “enjoy” my work and do a quality job of it, rather than necessarily making lots of money. I especially enjoyed my library and data entry jobs. I was honest and worked hard, making enough to have sufficient “worldly goods,” decent housing and some entertainment with my friends. I had a certain amount of success, but I was not competitive. When it came time for me to retire I was relieved. I now enjoy my daily blog and live carefully within my income. I'm happy. If I had been given money by the Higher Power, I might not have been so happy, because those people are expected to go to endless cocktail parties and charity functions, worrying all the time about how they look and who has a more expensive set of jewelry. They also have to worry about who they are socializing with, not because they have something in common with their peers, but because they have to maintain a high enough social status. I'm too full of my own ideas and too freedom-loving to live that kind of life. I can see how my life has followed in the path of my family, but I am not unhappy with that. Like my father, I'm content.