Friday, October 17, 2014


News Clips For The Day


2nd nurse with Ebola called CDC before boarding flight
By JONATHAN LAPOOK, SCOTT PELLEY CBS NEWS
October 15, 2014, 7:59 PM

In the case of Amber Vinson, the Dallas nurse who flew commercially as she was becoming ill with Ebola, one health official said "somebody dropped the ball."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Vinson called the agency several times before flying, saying that she had a fever with a temperature of 99.5 degrees. But because her fever wasn't 100.4 degrees or higher, she didn't officially fall into the group of "high risk" and was allowed to fly.

Officials in the U.S. have been trying to calm fears over the Ebola crisis, but time and again events have overtaken their assurances.

In August, before the first U.S. infection, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said: "We're confident that we have the facilities here to isolate patients, not only at the highly advanced ones like the one at Emory, but really at virtually every major hospital in the U.S."

On Sept. 30, Thomas Duncan tested positive in Dallas.

"This case is serious," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said in reaction. "Rest assured that our system is working as it should."

And there was reassurance from the White House.

"Every hospital in this county has the capability to isolate a patient, take the measures, put them in place to ensure that any suspected case is immediately isolated and the follow-up steps that have been mentioned are immediately taken," Lisa Monaco, a homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to President Obama, said Oct. 3.

But health care workers weren't so sure.

"We want to make sure that we have the correct equipment - the protective equipment - to protect both our patients and ourselves," Katy Roemer, who has worked as a nurse in California for 20 years, told CBS News correspondent John Blackstone last week.

Blackstone asked her whether hazmat suits were available to her.

"Not that I know of," Roemer said.

Duncan died Oct. 8. Four days later, nurse Nina Pham got sick. Federal officials were now discovering what health workers had warned about.

"The proof of the pudding, the training, was not adequate," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health. "It was not adequate. The training was not adequate. We've got to make sure the training is adequate."

The director of the CDC, who in August said he was "confident," said this Tuesday:

"We could've sent a more robust hospital infection control team and been more hands-on with the hospital from day one," Frieden said. "... I wish we had put a team like this on the ground the day the patient - the first patient - was diagnosed. That might have prevented this infection."

The CDC is reacting to the mistakes made in Dallas by turning up the heat on every hospital in the country, saying to be prepared.




“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that Vinson called the agency several times before flying, saying that she had a fever with a temperature of 99.5 degrees. But because her fever wasn't 100.4 degrees or higher, she didn't officially fall into the group of "high risk" and was allowed to fly. Officials in the U.S. have been trying to calm fears over the Ebola crisis, but time and again events have overtaken their assurances.... "We want to make sure that we have the correct equipment - the protective equipment - to protect both our patients and ourselves," Katy Roemer, who has worked as a nurse in California for 20 years, told CBS News correspondent John Blackstone last week. Blackstone asked her whether hazmat suits were available to her. 'Not that I know of,' Roemer said....

"'The proof of the pudding, the training, was not adequate,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.” Fauci repeated this statement four times in a row to make his point very clear. The nurses who complained about their situation when Duncan came to the hospital and his subsequent treatment and death – unfortunately no blood supply to administer antibodies to him was available in his blood type – made a number of statements to the press proving that indeed their training was not very thorough at all and they didn't always even use the hazmat suits. I am afraid that there may even be a gap in our scientific understanding of how many safety measures are sufficient to ward off contamination and, worse, how contagious is the virus after all. One spokesman on the TV news last night said that in a droplet of blood contaminated by AIDS there will be much fewer viruses present than there will of Ebola, comparatively; and an article a week or two ago said that Ebola viruses can live on inanimate surfaces for some hours, just as the influenza virus can, thus creating another contamination source. I would like for NIH to answer those two questions. After this incident when the second nurse placed not one but several calls to the CDC asking if it was safe for her to travel and they said it was; just like the nurses who first contacted Duncan and sent him home – I'm not sure how reliable the CDC is. CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said: "We're confident that we have the facilities here to isolate patients, not only at the highly advanced ones like the one at Emory, but really at virtually every major hospital in the U.S." It looks to me as though the CDC was doing some whitewashing rather than facing the really strong danger that this virus presents.





Online culture war prompts mass shooting threat
CBS NEWS October 16, 2014, 7:04 AM

A lecture on video game culture was canceled at Utah State University this week after the school received threats of a mass shooting.

Controversy that started online has now moved to the real world, reports CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan.

"Women are often a damsel in distress or helpless in some way, or they're highly sexualized and created to be these male fantasies," media critic Anita Sarkeesian said.

In her video blog, Sarkeesian speaks out about the way women are unfairly portrayed in video games.

She planned to speak on this topic at Utah State University before the school received an anonymous letter, threatening a massacre.

The letter read, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history."

Sarkeesian was told Utah law prevented campus police from stopping people with guns from entering the speech so Sarkeesian canceled her appearance.

This is the latest development in what has become known as "gamergate" -- an online culture war.

On one side are mostly female critics and their supporters, asking for more diverse representation of women in video games. On the other, traditionalist gamers who oppose to major changes, voicing their criticism in online forums.

"Gamergate is what I call a sexist temper tantrum," she said. "It is a group of mostly men, male gamers, who are attacking women."

So-called gamergaters harass their critics in online posts using language too graphic to repeat.

Another target of gamergate is video game developer Brianna Wu, who received online death threats and was forced to leave her house.

"So I think you have a culture of an industry that's been told from the top down for so long that this is a space for boys and men," Wu said.

The U.S. gaming industry brought in nearly $13 billion in revenue last year, $2 billion dollars more than Hollywood box office totals.

The entertainment software association reports that women make up 48% percent of the gaming community.

Sarkeesian and Wu hope that presence will force a change in the direction of the industry.

"Women who are asking for more diversity and more inclusivity in games are being attacked in really vicious ways," Sarkeesian said. "It's almost like they're afraid we're going to take their toys away."

Gamergaters argue that their first amendment rights are being challenged by Sarkesian and her peers, and that even if some don't share their taste in video games, they have the right to make and play them.




“A lecture on video game culture was canceled at Utah State University this week after the school received threats of a mass shooting. Controversy that started online has now moved to the real world, reports CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan. 'Women are often a damsel in distress or helpless in some way, or they're highly sexualized and created to be these male fantasies,' media critic Anita Sarkeesian said.... The letter read, 'I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history.' Sarkeesian was told Utah law prevented campus police from stopping people with guns from entering the speech so Sarkeesian canceled her appearance. This is the latest development in what has become known as "gamergate" -- an online culture war.... Another target of gamergate is video game developer Brianna Wu, who received online death threats and was forced to leave her house. 'So I think you have a culture of an industry that's been told from the top down for so long that this is a space for boys and men,' Wu said.... The entertainment software association reports that women make up 48% percent of the gaming community. Sarkeesian and Wu hope that presence will force a change in the direction of the industry. 'Women who are asking for more diversity and more inclusivity in games are being attacked in really vicious ways,' Sarkeesian said. 'It's almost like they're afraid we're going to take their toys away.'”

The taste for violence and prurient sex has accelerated in our society since I was young, partly because of the Supreme Court decisions on obscenity (see the Wikipedia article below) which have ruled a certain amount of indecency to be within the guaranteed right to free speech in a series of cases, ending in 1973 with Miller v. California whose three rules must be met before the material is considered obscene. I have seen some of the images of female characters on male-oriented video games (I watched over a guy's shoulder in a restaurant as he played one of the games.) and in his particular game the women had exaggerated female characteristics including huge, pointed breasts and wide hips. The game was also very violent, with the hero ikon blowing up his enemies one by one. The man playing the game was young, but not a kid. He was probably 25 or so.

The IQ level those games appeal to is not very high, and I would like to stress that it is not the most reliable and decent kind of person who wants to saturate his mind with such negative and sexually oriented material. Men who are mentally disturbed are especially likely to be influenced by the games to do harm outside the video screen, as is evidenced by the threat letter of an attack on Sarkeesian's speech. Likewise the game producer Wu who created a game called Giant Spacekat felt that she had to leave her home due to threats. To me, there is reason enough presented in these three articles to pursue federal regulation of those video games. Like child pornography, where you find a computer filled with “kidieporn,” you find a man who has or may soon in the future sexually abuse a child, and that is a good reason to prohibit these games. The very fact that they are interactive would tend to induce a mental sexual response more so than a simple picture of video would. As to whether or not such games are obscenity, by the Supreme Court standards, they certainly are aimed at prurient interests, depict sexual contact in some of them, and have no redeeming social value. Just the contrary. They drag the mind down to ever lower levels and I feel sure will make some mentally weak people act out violently more than they would have otherwise. See the three articles below.


http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/11/6963279/brianna-wu-death-threats-police-harassment

Game developer Brianna Wu flees home after death threats, Mass. police investigating
By Michael McWhertor on Oct 11, 2014

Game developer Brianna Wu, head of development at Boston-based Giant Spacekat, fled her home after receiving a series of specific, violent threats directed at her and her family on Twitter last night. Police confirmed they are actively investigating the threats.

The harassment of Wu is the third such high profile event in the past three months involving a woman in games being the target of relentless harassment and death and rape threats. In August, Depression Quest developer Zoe Quinn was subjected to threats and harassment, as was Tropes vs Women in Games creator Anita Sarkeesian.

Wu was targeted after tweeting a series of images critical of those who identify with the GamerGate campaign. After tweeting that members of the 8chan message board — a refuge for former 4chan posters — and GamerGate supporters had posted her personal information online, Wu republished a series of disturbing stream of tweets that contained violent threats and her home address.

"And, here's the part of the night where I call the police," Wu tweeted alongside a disturbingly violent anti-feminist message directed at her. (A good timeline of the events on Twitter are collected at We Hunted The Mammoth.)



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/grand-theft-auto-rape_n_5671400.html

The Disturbing New Trend In 'Grand Theft Auto' Is Virtual Rape
The Huffington Post
by Dino Grandoni
Posted August 12, 2014

The widely popular "Grand Theft Auto" video-game series lets players get away with a wide range of virtual crimes, including looting and murder. But that's not enough mayhem for some players, who are rewriting its code to add another crime: rape.

In a disturbing new trend, "Grand Theft Auto V" gamers are virtually raping the avatars controlled by other people playing online. They then post videos of their exploits on YouTube.

The virtual rapists modify the game's code to let them do things they otherwise couldn't. They choose a naked or pantless man as their character, lock him to another player and play an animation that thrusts his pelvis back and forth.

Note: YouTube videos of the gameplay that previously appeared here have since been removed by the site as a violation of its policy on content depicting sexual violence.

A Reddit user with the handle "mrerikmattila" described the experience of being a victim. "You cannot kill him and there is nothing you can do about it," he wrote of his virtual rapist. "Worse, when he's done, you are stuck doing strip dances."

Rockstar Games, which publishes the series, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the past, Rockstar has pushed back against accusations that its games depict rape. Last year, when a video-game blogger at PlayStation Universe thought he encountered a rape scene in "Grand Theft Auto V," Rockstar responded that the episode in question was "meant to depict and imply cannibalism, not rape."

Sadly, virtual rape isn't new to video games. Earlier this year, video-game writer Kim Correa described her own virtual sexual assault in the zombie apocalypse game "DayZ." Two armed men cornered her character, made her strip, killed her and simulated having sex with her body. The players could speak to her through the video game the entire time.

"I definitely don't want to say what happened to me verbally is as important as if it had happened in real life," Correa later said in an interview with TLDR, a radio show that airs on WNYC 93.9 FM. "But it means something. And I'm not sure what it means."



I know it when I see it
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

The Supreme Court of the United States' rulings concerning obscenity in the public square have been unusually inconsistent. Though First Amendment free speech protections have always been taken into account, both Constitutional "Interpretationalists" and "Originalists" have limited this right to account for public sensibilities. BeforeRoth v. United States in 1957, common law rules stemming from the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin have articulated that anything which "deprave[s] and corrupt[s] those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was said to be obscene, and therefore banned.[6] The Roth case gave a clearer standard for deciding what constitutes pornography, stating that obscenity is material where the "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", and that the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would disapprove of, reaffirming the 1913 case United States v. Kennerley. This standard allowed for many works to be called obscene, and though the Roth decision acknowledged "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance [...] have the full protection of guaranties [sic]", the Justices put public sensibility above the protection of individual rights.

Jacobellis v. Ohio[7] (1964) narrowed the scope of the Roth decision. Justice Potter Stewart, in his concurrence to the majority opinion, created the standard whereby all speech is protected except for "hard-core pornography". As for what, exactly, constitutes hard-core pornography, Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." The film in question was Louis Malle's The Lovers.

This was modified in Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966), in which obscenity was defined as anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value. Still, however, this left the ultimate decision of what constituted obscenity up to the whim of the courts, and did not provide an easily applicable standard for review by the lower courts. This changed in 1973 with Miller v. California. The Miller case established what came to be known as the Miller test, which clearly articulated that three criteria must be met for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulations. The Court recognized the inherent risk in legislating what constitutes obscenity, and necessarily limited the scope of the criteria. The criteria were:

1. The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work in its entirety, must find that it appeals to the prurient interest.

2. The work must describe or depict, in an obviously offensive way, sexual conduct, or excretory functions.

3. The work as a whole must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values".





U.S.: Iraqi army "hollowed out" before ISIS' rise
CBS NEWS October 15, 2014, 9:57 PM

The U.S. has been training the Iraqi army for a decade and they have been performing abysmally in most areas.

"The Iraqi forces, unfortunately, as a result of actions taken by the previous government, were in many aspects hollowed out," Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser Tony Blinken told CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer in Iraq. "They were deprofessionalized. Competent commanders were moved out. Incompetent ones were moved in based on loyalty to the government."

The Islamic militant group ISIS is making inroads in Iraq despite international airstrikes there and in Syria.

While ISIS militants have lost ground in several strategic areas, Blinken said "it's a mixed picture" as they gain ground in key strategic territory leading to Baghdad.

Blinken said that he would not rule out the possibility of more U.S. advisers on the ground.

"But what I will rule out, very clearly, is something the president's been very clear about, which is you will not have American combat forces fighting on the ground as they were in the past decade," Blinken said.

Asked if foreign boots would be seen on the ground, Blinken responded: "One of the things we've learned over the past decade is that in these very complex and highly charged situations, when you introduce foreign elements it makes it even more complicated."




"'They were deprofessionalized. Competent commanders were moved out. Incompetent ones were moved in based on loyalty to the government.'... Asked if foreign boots would be seen on the ground, Blinken responded: 'One of the things we've learned over the past decade is that in these very complex and highly charged situations, when you introduce foreign elements it makes it even more complicated.'... While ISIS militants have lost ground in several strategic areas, Blinken said 'it's a mixed picture' as they gain ground in key strategic territory leading to Baghdad. Blinken said that he would not rule out the possibility of more U.S. advisers on the ground.”

It's the old adage, the issue isn't how big a dog you have in the fight, it's how much fight there is in the dog. I'm sad to see the US just give up on Iraq, but I suppose Obama and key congressmen don't want to see US soldiers mired in a hopeless and unending situation again, with members of the Iraqi army and police force murdering an American every now and then. The same problem occurred in Afghanistan. Yet if we don't stop ISIS some way we will have an endless war with jihadists, and on our own US soil, I'm afraid. None of our Middle Eastern allies want to send in ground troops either, and they don't trust the Kurds so they won't arm them. I think we should arm the Kurds because they are trying their best to fight ISIS, and with some success despite being outnumbered and too lightly armed. War is not good, but pacifism is not sensible against a group like ISIS. We should take the military weapons away from the city police forces in this country and send them to the Kurds. The Pentagon could still get rid of their old weapons and ask Congress for newer replacements.





One man's mission to rescue child sex-trafficking victims
By ELAINE QUIJANO CBS NEWS October 15, 2014, 7:50 PM

Last weekend, police broke up a major sex-trafficking ring in Colombia, which has become a destination for tourists looking for sex with boys and girls.

The police had help from an American who went undercover to rescue the children.

Tim Ballard has one mission: to track down child traffickers. Four months ago Colombian authorities asked him to investigate a tip that children were being sold there as sex slaves.

"Within a half hour this individual walks up to me asking me what I'm here for, what I want and within minutes he tells me that I have kids here as young as 11 years old," Ballard says.

A former Homeland Security agent, Ballard now heads up Operation Underground Railroad, a non-profit group that rescues trafficked kids. After that first meeting, the Colombians asked him to put together a sting.

Operation Underground Railroad spent months planning -- renting a house, rigging it with hidden cameras to document the crime, coordinating with Colombian authorities and negotiating with the traffickers.

"How they find these kids is they lure them in by pretending to have a modeling agency," Ballard explains. "They target them at nine- or 10-years-old and they were telling us that at about 11, they're ready for sex. They're ready to be sold."

What is it like to look into that kind of person's eyes?

"It's horrifying and this is why: Because I have to smile in the face of evil," Ballard says.

Less than 24 hours after the operatives landed, the suspected traffickers arrived on the island and the final deal with the undercover team began.

Fifty-four boys and girls, aged 11 to 18, were ushered in for what had been billed as a sex party. They were given candy and drinks and told to wait in a small room.

"This little 11-year-old boy, I remember, he asked... one of my operatives for some cocaine," Ballard recalls with tears in his eyes. "He said, 'They usually give me something because I'm really scared. To kind of numb myself.'"

By the time the deal was done, the alleged traffickers were set to make $25,000.

That transaction was never completed.

Twenty-five Colombian special operatives stormed the party, arresting five suspects -- four men and one former beauty queen -- all charged with child trafficking.

The victims, 29 of whom are under 18, were evacuated, given medical exams and placed in a rehabilitation center where specialists are working to undo the damage.

"Right before we got on the boat, we walked by the room where the kids were and a couple of the kids came up to the screen," Ballard says. "And they put their hand up on the window) and I go to touch their hand... and I see that there's liberation now.
Liberation, one child at a time.




“Last weekend, police broke up a major sex-trafficking ring in Colombia, which has become a destination for tourists looking for sex with boys and girls. The police had help from an American who went undercover to rescue the children. Tim Ballard has one mission: to track down child traffickers. Four months ago Colombian authorities asked him to investigate a tip that children were being sold there as sex slaves.... Operation Underground Railroad spent months planning -- renting a house, rigging it with hidden cameras to document the crime, coordinating with Colombian authorities and negotiating with the traffickers. 'How they find these kids is they lure them in by pretending to have a modeling agency,' Ballard explains. 'They target them at nine- or 10-years-old and they were telling us that at about 11, they're ready for sex. They're ready to be sold.'... 'It's horrifying and this is why: Because I have to smile in the face of evil,' Ballard says. Less than 24 hours after the operatives landed, the suspected traffickers arrived on the island and the final deal with the undercover team began.... That transaction was never completed. Twenty-five Colombian special operatives stormed the party, arresting five suspects -- four men and one former beauty queen -- all charged with child trafficking. The victims, 29 of whom are under 18, were evacuated, given medical exams and placed in a rehabilitation center where specialists are working to undo the damage.”

This is very sad. The kids are probably recruited from poor neighborhoods where they have little to eat or clothes to wear. Like all young people they dream of making a fortune, so when they are told they will become models they join those who then hold them captive. I think similar things happen in poor places in US cities as well. Here there are too many kids who run away from home due to poor relationships with their parents, or even sexual abuse by a family member, and live on the street by their wits or with adults who sell their sexual services.




For More Millennials, It's Kids First, Marriage Maybe – NPR
by JENNIFER LUDDEN
October 16, 2014

Decades ago, an "oops" pregnancy might have meant a rush to the altar. But when Michelle Sheridan got pregnant three years ago, the topic of marriage never came up with her boyfriend, Philip Underwood, whom she lives with in Frederick, Md.

If anything, it was the opposite.

"It changes the dynamic of the household," she says. "I had a friend who put off her marriage. Got pregnant, and she's like, 'let's just wait, 'cause we don't know if we're going to be able to make it through this.' "

That attitude reflects a sea change in family life: For the generation under age 35, nearly half of all births are now outside marriage. This family structure, once common mainly among African-Americans and the poor, is spreading across races and into the middle class.

Factor in education, though, and the difference is stark, raising concerns of a new class divide. Among young women without a college degree — those like Michelle Sheridan — 55 percent of births are outside marriage, according to an analysis by the research group Child Trends. For those with at least a four-year degree, it's just 9 percent.

Like half of all U.S. pregnancies, Sheridan's was not exactly planned.

"We think we mistimed something," she says. "But it wasn't really, like, a bad time, or, I don't know ... it just ... seemed like an okay thing to do?"

"I stared at the pregnancy test for 10 minutes, waiting for it to change," Underwood says.

"But then he got really happy — it was actually really cute," Sheridan says.

It wasn't Sheridan's first child. Her older son, Logan, is 8; his father left before he was born. Michelle spent four years as a single mom before meeting Underwood, and says she felt no stigma or fear about that.

And even though she's now 28 and Underwood is 32, she feels no urgency to tie the knot.

"I don't want to be in my mid-30s having kids," she says. "But I can be in my mid-30s getting married and it makes no real difference. It's still somebody to spend the rest of your life with."

Like so many children of the 1980s and '90s — the decades when the nation hit its highest divorce rate — both Sheridan and Underwood are also wary about the institution of marriage.

Underwood says when he was a baby — or when his mom was still pregnant, he isn't sure — "my dad left for a loaf of bread and never came back."

Sheridan's parents stayed together, but fought a lot.

"That was hard to watch," she says. "I don't want to go through that, and I don't want my kids to see it."

Marriage And Money

Money is another factor in the couple's choice not to marry. Sheridan spent years as a restaurant server, then as a pizza delivery driver. She got pregnant just as she had managed to start college full-time, with federal aid. Underwood's a car technician, but he was going through a rough patch, work-wise.

"It was so sporadic, and it would go from full-time one week to 20 hours the next," he says.

Their apartment is government-subsidized. Things were so tight at one point that they shared a cell phone.

But isn't marrying young and poor and then work your way up the time-honored way?

"That seems terrifying at this point," Sheridan says. "It's hard enough to work up just on your own."

Instead of marriage being a vehicle into adulthood and stability, young adults now see it as the cherry on top, the thing you do once you're established and financially secure. The problem is, that's become harder to do.

"Fifty years ago, when people graduated high school they could go out and get a manufacturing job and have a pretty good wage, you know, some benefits," says Arielle Kuperberg, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

But those wages have been falling since the 1970s, she says, and the unemployment rate for high school graduates today is about double what it is for those with a college degree.

Kuperberg says it's not that lesser-educated couples don't want to wed. She studied the labor market in 20 cities, "and in cities that had better labor markets for people with less education, there was actually a smaller gap in marriage rates," she says.

The Pew Research Center also recently looked at how the labor market is affecting the marriage market in different cities, and found that never-married women overwhelmingly say it's "very important" that a potential spouse have a steady job. But Pew also found only 84 employed single men for every 100 single women among adults ages 25 to 34.

Kuperberg worries that a changing economy is making marriage almost a luxury — something only for the better-off.

The Marriage Divide

At the other end of this marriage divide, Diana and Dave Black of Harrisonburg, Va., started dating in college and now have graduate degrees and budding careers.

The couple is among the minority of millennials who feel secure enough to say "I do" — though Dave waited to propose until he got a handle on his student loans. "I had the bulk of them paid off at that point," he says, "and I felt like I was in a decent place to shell out the additional money for the ring."

They were the first in their social circle to get engaged. Now both 27, neither feels ready for children just yet.

"For me, parenthood is such an enormous responsibility," Diana says. "and the longer I give myself, I feel like the better prepared I'll be."

But that doesn't mean they're not planning. They recently bought a four-bedroom house with a big yard out back and good schools nearby. And upstairs is a perfect child's room, complete with secret passage.

"This door here goes to the attic," says Diana, "so for a kid, that would feel very Harry Potter-tastic, I think!"

Two different stories, two couples who each say they're acting in the best interests of their children — or future children. But researcher Kuperberg says this class divide in marriage could mean even more inequality in the next generation.

The problem, she says, is not that people are having kids without being married. It's that in the U.S., on average, unwed couples are far more likely to split up by the time their child is 5— and research shows that can have a host of negative impacts on children.

"It leads to some behavioral problems," Kuperberg says. "It can lead to academic problems. It just leads to kind of less of a sense of stability, which hurts their chances later on."

Of course, it doesn't always happen that way.

Earlier this year, Phillip Underwood landed a steady job as a car technician at Wal-Mart. He says that made him think differently about proposing to Sheridan.

"I know every week I will be working 40 hours," he says. "I'm not making the most money in the world, but we're not financially tight."

"We have diapers, and everybody eats!" Sheridan says, laughing. "And we can drive if we need to drive somewhere."

By the end of his first month on the new job, Underwood had bought a ring. Sheridan said yes. Since then he's landed an even better job, and the couple has set a wedding date: next June.




“That attitude reflects a sea change in family life: For the generation under age 35, nearly half of all births are now outside marriage. This family structure, once common mainly among African-Americans and the poor, is spreading across races and into the middle class. Factor in education, though, and the difference is stark, raising concerns of a new class divide. Among young women without a college degree — those like Michelle Sheridan — 55 percent of births are outside marriage, according to an analysis by the research group Child Trends. For those with at least a four-year degree, it's just 9 percent.'... Underwood says when he was a baby — or when his mom was still pregnant, he isn't sure — 'my dad left for a loaf of bread and never came back.' Sheridan's parents stayed together, but fought a lot. 'That was hard to watch,' she says. 'I don't want to go through that, and I don't want my kids to see it.'... Kuperberg says it's not that lesser-educated couples don't want to wed. She studied the labor market in 20 cities, 'and in cities that had better labor markets for people with less education, there was actually a smaller gap in marriage rates,' she says.... Two different stories, two couples who each say they're acting in the best interests of their children — or future children. But researcher Kuperberg says this class divide in marriage could mean even more inequality in the next generation.... 'It leads to some behavioral problems," Kuperberg says. "It can lead to academic problems. It just leads to kind of less of a sense of stability, which hurts their chances later on.'... By the end of his first month on the new job, Underwood had bought a ring. Sheridan said yes. Since then he's landed an even better job, and the couple has set a wedding date: next June.”

One thing struck me in this article which makes me uneasy for our young people. A mention was made of the apparently huge sacrifice of having to share a cell phone, two mentions of the cost of a diamond engagement ring, and something else I've noticed as a trend. A great many young people have an extremely expensive wedding nowadays with the man kneeling down to ask for her hand, preferably in a public place to make a great show of it. In addition, the wedding will have many guests and maybe include a trip to the Bahamas as an absolute requirement. My first husband and I had about 75 guests, a dress made by a woman I knew who was a seamstress, and a half-carat ring. We went to the nearest beach for our honeymoon, at Nags Head, NC. I didn't feel deprived. We broke up after six years, but not because of money. We both had been brought up without much money, so we didn't expect to buy a house at all, much less a four bedroom job in the suburbs as mentioned in this article. We were still in college and that's where most of our money went. I regret to this day that I didn't have a baby in that marriage.

I have lived on a very modest income all my life and I just don't expect a new “smart phone” every year and a huge television set, not to mention the Mercedes Benz and the four bedroom house. We have become a country of citizens who expect lots of gadgets and status symbols just because we see them advertised on TV, and we too often place money over people. In the real world, a woman with children is very likely to get a job that brings in very little money even in better economic times due to the unfair wages that are usually paid to women, if she has a job at all. I think it is better to be married when the kids come along – call me “old fashioned.” It gives the kids a male and female role model, people to discuss life with, and more than one source of parental love. It is also better, psychologically, to live together as a well-established couple when the right fit comes along, and having a baby is a part of what most women desire for their lives. It is also a basic part of “being in love” that we want that particular man's baby, not just any baby.

The old way of marrying when we find our love mate and having kids as a natural part of the relationship is good emotionally for the couple and family. The couple will necessarily pare down their expenses toward their income level, and jobless periods as we are now experiencing don't last forever. For a couple to take government subsidized housing and food stamps is not shameful if it helps them stretch their budget. For 55 percent of births to be outside marriage is really not a good thing, and I must say I find it a bit shocking. Sure a woman with children is sometimes forced to be both father and mother to the children, but it isn't for the best. Of course if a husband/father is abusive that is even worse, so those marriages should break up if the man won't go to family therapy and change his mindset. I would not have the government fail to honor fatherless families, however, or refuse financial aid on that basis.






Harvard Law Professors Say New Sexual Assault Policy Is One-Sided – NPR
by TOVIA SMITH
October 15, 2014

Just a few months after Harvard University announced a new, tougher policy against campus sexual assault, a group of Harvard law professors is blasting the rules as unfair.

Harvard announced its new policy this summer, after the school came under federal investigation for being too soft on sexual assault. The group of 28 law professors say Harvard has overreacted with rules that are "overwhelmingly stacked against the accused" and "starkly one sided."

"The Harvard policy goes so far that it's pretty shocking," says Harvard Law professor Janet Halley.

She says Harvard's process, at its core, is biased, because it is run by a single Title IX compliance office that's under pressure to show the government results.

"It's the charging agent like the prosecutor, it's the investigator — they're the judge, and they're the [people] who hears the appeal from all those decisions," she says. "So they're not neutral. They're there to increase the number of persons held responsible."

Halley is also troubled that the policy, she says, gives alleged victims many more rights and protections than the accused. She says it is also too broad in what it considers sexual misconduct. The school, she argues, relies too much on what a victim says is a violation, and too little on what a "reasonable person might say," as federal law requires.

"When you drop the reasonable person requirement, then you're saying, 'No, it's just if the person wakes up the next morning, and says [the contact] was unwelcome, we'll entertain a complaint about that.' And that squanders the moral authority of sexual harassment law," Halley says.

Harvard officials declined to comment, but in a statement defended their process as "neutral, fair and objective." The university says a committee of faculty, staff and students is reviewing the policy, but acknowledges that not everyone will agree with its new approach.

But while some feel Harvard's new policy goes too far, others believe it doesn't go far enough.

MaryRose Mazzola, a student activist, says she's troubled by the professors' suggestion that the policy is slanted in favor of victims.

"That's not the feedback that we've heard at all from students," she says. "And that's not a problem that we've seen in the policy."

A bigger problem is that the policy does not include a stricter definition of consent, Mazzola says. All accused students would all be better protected if Harvard had an affirmative consent policy for sexual activity, in which only an explicit "yes" means consent, instead of the old "no means no."

"We think that [no-means-no approach] leaves it open for ambiguity, and we want there to be more clarity in the policy specifically saying the 'yes means yes,' " she says.

Harvard is being watched closely by other schools.

"I think we owe these professors a sincere thanks for finally drawing a line in the sand," says Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Neal says most schools are afraid to push back against what she calls the government shakedown that is forcing campuses to enact policies that she says go too far.

"It has effectively put a gun to the heads of our colleges and universities to disregard constitutional rights," she says. "I think these professors are properly saying that we cannot allow our institutions to be taken down an Orwellian path where the Constitution takes a back seat to other considerations."

John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University agrees, saying that the Harvard protest against its sexual assault policy could mean the pendulum will soon begin swinging back.

"This can't last," Banzhaf says. "I think there already is growing a public backlash against it, and like any pendulum, once you go past the bottom and you start going in the other direction, it does begin to slow down. And I think it's beginning to slow down."

What might make the difference is the rapidly growing number of students who say they were unfairly convicted in campus tribunals and are suing universities for millions in damages, he says.




“Harvard announced its new policy this summer, after the school came under federal investigation for being too soft on sexual assault. The group of 28 law professors say Harvard has overreacted with rules that are "overwhelmingly stacked against the accused" and 'starkly one sided.'... 'It's the charging agent like the prosecutor, it's the investigator — they're the judge, and they're the [people] who hears the appeal from all those decisions,' she says. 'So they're not neutral. They're there to increase the number of persons held responsible.' Halley is also troubled that the policy, she says, gives alleged victims many more rights and protections than the accused. She says it is also too broad in what it considers sexual misconduct. The school, she argues, relies too much on what a victim says is a violation, and too little on what a 'reasonable person might say,' as federal law requires.... 'That's not the feedback that we've heard at all from students," she says. "And that's not a problem that we've seen in the policy.' A bigger problem is that the policy does not include a stricter definition of consent, Mazzola says. All accused students would all be better protected if Harvard had an affirmative consent policy for sexual activity, in which only an explicit 'yes' means consent, instead of the old 'no means no.'... 'It has effectively put a gun to the heads of our colleges and universities to disregard constitutional rights," she says. 'I think these professors are properly saying that we cannot allow our institutions to be taken down an Orwellian path where the Constitution takes a back seat to other considerations.'”

This is the second article on the subject in the last few months, and in that article one college was said to have adopted the doctrine “yes means yes” as the student activist Mazzola requested, which is to me much preferable over “no means no” because of the male oriented viewpoint that many girls “really want it, they just can't say yes.” In addition, however, I personally feel about colleges posing penalties for rape the same way I do about Catholic priests being investigated and punished solely by the church – rape is a very serious crime, not a misdemeanor, and should be handled by the police. The penalty should not be expulsion from college, but a prison term. True the girl is going to have to go up against the young man in open court, which is not pleasant, but there will be some justice done if the jury convicts and the judge gives a stiff penalty.