jeanelle leeland

Friday, December 14, 2012

Senate goes after secret cyberstalking apps

2 hrs.

Richard Lardner , Associated Press

For around $50, a jealous wife or husband can download software that can continuously track the whereabouts of a spouse better than any private detective. It's frighteningly easy and effective in an age when nearly everyone carries a cellphone that can record every moment of a person's physical movements. But it soon might be illegal.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was expected Thursday to approve legislation that would close a legal loophole that allows so-called cyberstalking apps to operate secretly on a cellphone and transmit the user's location information without a person's knowledge.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., would update laws passed years before wireless technology revolutionized communications. Telephone companies currently are barred from disclosing to businesses the locations of people when they make a traditional phone call. But there's no such prohibition when communicating over the Internet. If a mobile device sends an email, links to a website or launches an app, the precise location of the phone can be passed to advertisers, marketers and others without the user's permission.

The ambiguity has created a niche for companies like Retina Software, which makes ePhoneTracker and describes it as "stealth phone spy software."

"Suspect your spouse is cheating?" the company's website says. "Don't break the bank by hiring a private investigator."

An emailed statement from Retina Software said the program is for the lawful monitoring of a cellphone that the purchaser of the software owns and has a right to monitor. If there is evidence the customer doesn't own the phone, the account is closed, the company said. The program is not intended or marketed for malicious purposes, the statement said.

But Franken and supporters of his bill said there is no way to ensure the rules are followed. These programs can be installed in moments, perhaps while the cellphone's actual owner is sleeping or in the shower. The apps operate invisibly to the cellphone's user. They can silently record text messages, call logs, physical locations and visits to websites. All the information is relayed to an email address chosen by the installer.

Victim's advocacy groups said Franken's bill is a common-sense step to curb stalking and domestic violence by weakening a tool that gives one person power over another.

"It's really, really troubling that an industry would see an opportunity to make money off of strengthening someone's opportunity to control and threaten another individual," said Karen Jarmoc, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

A domestic violence case in St. Louis County, Minn., helped persuade Franken to introduce his bill. A woman had entered a county building to meet with her advocate when she received a text message from her abuser asking her why she was there, according to congressional testimony delivered last year by the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Frightened, she and her advocate went to the local courthouse to file for a protective order. She got another text demanding to know why she was at the courthouse. They later determined her abuser was tracing her movements with an app that had been placed on her cellphone. The woman was not identified by name in the congressional testimony.

Franken's proposal would make companies subject to civil liability if they fail to secure permission before obtaining location information from a person's cellphone and sharing it with anyone else. They also would be liable if they fail to tell a user no later than seven days after the service begins that the program is running on their phone. Companies would face a criminal penalty if they knowingly operate an app with the intent to facilitate stalking.

The bill includes an exception to the permission requirement for parents who want to place tracking software on the cellphones of minor children without them being aware it is there.

An organization representing software companies opposes Franken's bill because it said the user consent requirement would curb innovation in the private sector without adequately addressing the problem of cyberstalking. Voluntary but enforceable codes of conduct for the industry are more effective methods for increasing transparency and consumer confidence, said David LeDuc, senior director for public policy at the Software & Information Industry Association.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/senate-legislation-targets-cyberstalking-software-1C7592290

martina navratilova high school shooting daytona 500 national pancake day ohio school shooting sean young arrested matt kenseth

Congress works better than many think, new research shows

Public release date: 13-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail |

Share ]

Contact: Scott Adler
e.scott.adler@colorado.edu
303-492-6659
University of Colorado at Boulder

The perception of Congress as a gridlocked institution where little happens is overblown, according to new research by scholars at the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Washington.

And the way much of Congress' work gets done is through self-manufactured crises like the "fiscal cliff," say political science professors Scott Adler of CU-Boulder and John Wilkerson of UW.

"Yes, Congress has taken on a more partisan tone in recent decades," Adler said. "We do hear a lot about the conflicts between Democrats and Republicans on key pieces of legislation. But we're also seeing Congress exceeding public expectations. Congress does govern."

Adler and Wilkerson studied several decades of lawmaking to better understand how issues end up on the legislative agenda and the factors that lead to policy change. In a new book, "Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving" from Cambridge University Press, they reveal that they were surprised to find political friction had a limited influence on congressional productivity.

"Understandably, the media, scholars and the public tend to be more attentive to political conflict, especially partisan conflict, than to political cooperation," Wilkerson said. "Yet on most issues, including the most important issues, consensus and cooperation are the norm within Congress."

It is a common congressional practice to pass short-term legislation that forces lawmakers to revisit important issues on a regular basis, the authors said. The "fiscal cliff" has helped to draw attention to the use of manufactured crises "to induce bargaining between Democrats and Republicans, between the president and Congress and between the House and Senate," Adler said.

This is not a new development. In fact, the first substantive law passed by the very first Congress in 1789 was set up to expire six years later. Short-term laws have been passed with greater frequency since the 1960s as the congressional agenda has become increasingly crowded. Today Congress simply has too much to deal with to operate in any other way, they said.

Most major programs are on schedules that have them expiring every four, five or six years. And because the reauthorization calendar is known years in advance, everyone, including lobbyists and other stakeholders, knows when it is and is not time to press for policy changes. Wilkerson and Adler found that program expirations are the best predictors of when big policy changes will occur.

"An expiring law does not necessarily lead to significant reform," Wilkerson said. "Sometimes Congress just renews it because there is little need for reform. At other times, Congress extends because partisan differences inhibit substantive progress. But often these manufactured crises do serve as the catalysts for significant policy change.

"The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 comes up for reauthorization every six years, and has been the catalyst for major education reforms," Wilkerson said. "The Civil Rights Act similarly comes up for reauthorization on a regular basis, and these reauthorizations have served as catalysts for important expansions of civil rights protections. The same can be said for transportation, intelligence and many other policy areas."

Congress has had less success reforming issues that are not on recurring schedules, such as immigration and energy, the professors said. Passing smaller programs on a short-term basis in these areas might be one approach to encouraging more action. These renewals might then provide the catalysts for broader policy changes, as has been the case with the Higher Education Act.

"By reading our book, we hope that observers of Congress will better appreciate what Congress does and how it does it," Wilkerson said.

###

Contact:
Scott Adler, CU-Boulder, 303-492-6659
e.scott.adler@colorado.edu
John Wilkerson, UW, 206-543-8030
jwilker@uw.edu
Peter Caughey, CU media relations, 303-492-4007
Peter Kelley, UW media relations, 206-543-2580
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Congress works better than many think, new research shows Public release date: 13-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Scott Adler
e.scott.adler@colorado.edu
303-492-6659
University of Colorado at Boulder

The perception of Congress as a gridlocked institution where little happens is overblown, according to new research by scholars at the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Washington.

And the way much of Congress' work gets done is through self-manufactured crises like the "fiscal cliff," say political science professors Scott Adler of CU-Boulder and John Wilkerson of UW.

"Yes, Congress has taken on a more partisan tone in recent decades," Adler said. "We do hear a lot about the conflicts between Democrats and Republicans on key pieces of legislation. But we're also seeing Congress exceeding public expectations. Congress does govern."

Adler and Wilkerson studied several decades of lawmaking to better understand how issues end up on the legislative agenda and the factors that lead to policy change. In a new book, "Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving" from Cambridge University Press, they reveal that they were surprised to find political friction had a limited influence on congressional productivity.

"Understandably, the media, scholars and the public tend to be more attentive to political conflict, especially partisan conflict, than to political cooperation," Wilkerson said. "Yet on most issues, including the most important issues, consensus and cooperation are the norm within Congress."

It is a common congressional practice to pass short-term legislation that forces lawmakers to revisit important issues on a regular basis, the authors said. The "fiscal cliff" has helped to draw attention to the use of manufactured crises "to induce bargaining between Democrats and Republicans, between the president and Congress and between the House and Senate," Adler said.

This is not a new development. In fact, the first substantive law passed by the very first Congress in 1789 was set up to expire six years later. Short-term laws have been passed with greater frequency since the 1960s as the congressional agenda has become increasingly crowded. Today Congress simply has too much to deal with to operate in any other way, they said.

Most major programs are on schedules that have them expiring every four, five or six years. And because the reauthorization calendar is known years in advance, everyone, including lobbyists and other stakeholders, knows when it is and is not time to press for policy changes. Wilkerson and Adler found that program expirations are the best predictors of when big policy changes will occur.

"An expiring law does not necessarily lead to significant reform," Wilkerson said. "Sometimes Congress just renews it because there is little need for reform. At other times, Congress extends because partisan differences inhibit substantive progress. But often these manufactured crises do serve as the catalysts for significant policy change.

"The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 comes up for reauthorization every six years, and has been the catalyst for major education reforms," Wilkerson said. "The Civil Rights Act similarly comes up for reauthorization on a regular basis, and these reauthorizations have served as catalysts for important expansions of civil rights protections. The same can be said for transportation, intelligence and many other policy areas."

Congress has had less success reforming issues that are not on recurring schedules, such as immigration and energy, the professors said. Passing smaller programs on a short-term basis in these areas might be one approach to encouraging more action. These renewals might then provide the catalysts for broader policy changes, as has been the case with the Higher Education Act.

"By reading our book, we hope that observers of Congress will better appreciate what Congress does and how it does it," Wilkerson said.

###

Contact:
Scott Adler, CU-Boulder, 303-492-6659
e.scott.adler@colorado.edu
John Wilkerson, UW, 206-543-8030
jwilker@uw.edu
Peter Caughey, CU media relations, 303-492-4007
Peter Kelley, UW media relations, 206-543-2580
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/uoca-cw121312.php
darvish george zimmerman website edmund fitzgerald uss enterprise white house easter egg roll 2012 andy cohen andy cohen

Wooden hip be lovely? Replacing damaged bones with implants based on wood

Dec. 13, 2012 ? Could aging and damaged bones be replaced with implants based on wood? That's the question Italian researchers from the National Research Council of Italy (CNR) writing in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management hope to answer.

Accidental damage, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, bone cancer and other diseases, represent a constant threat in the lives of millions of people and, with the progressive aging of the world population, this threat can only increase. Indeed, more than 2.2 million bone grafting procedures are performed annually around the world and this number is increasing as lifestyles change and people live longer. As such, finding biomimetic materials that are similar to bone in terms of strength, flexibility and density is a pressing concern for medical scientists. The hope is that it might be possible to displace or at least augment metal alloy implants using such materials.

The structure of some woods at the microscopic level is very close to that of natural bone and it shares some of those desirable properties, such as unique biomechanical properties, i.e. high strength and lightness at the same time, due to its hierarchical organization.

Now, Ugo Finardi (Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth-CERIS-CNR, and University of Torino), and Simone Sprio (Institute of Science and Technology for Ceramics -- ISTEC-CNR), have carried out a case study on the implications of a new technology recently developed by the Research Group on Biomaterials of ISTEC. In that work, the researchers, Anna Tampieri, Simone Sprio and Andrea Ruffini, took inspiration from nature and used a nanotechnological approach to transform rattan wood into hierarchically organized implants. These biomimetic materials have a strength and flexibility similar to natural bone, something that cannot be achieved with current metal alloy technologies.

The technology described by Finardi and Sprio explains how the hierarchical physical structure of rattan wood might be used as a scaffold for creating a synthetic material to replace damaged and lost bone. An additional benefit is that such a material could be load bearing, a factor that has precluded the use of earlier biomimetic materials.

The processing of the raw wood to remove chemical components incompatible with implants for humans is long and complex but the benefits of producing a material that is so similar to bone and can be shaped to fit perfectly far outweigh such issues, the team suggests. The process involves heat treatment of the wood to remove cellulose, lignin and other plant materials but to leave behind a carbon skeleton that can then be infiltrated and reacted with calcium, oxygen and phosphate to make a porous material, chemically and mechanically mimicking bone. The Research team says that unlike metal alloys, ceramics and even donor bone, their patented material is low cost, has very good biomechanics, is biocompatible and can be integrated into existing bone, thus properly assisting bone regeneration.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Inderscience, via AlphaGalileo.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Ugo Finardi, Simone Sprio. Human bone regeneration from wood: a novel hierarchically organised nanomaterial. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 2012; 13 (4) [link]

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/strange_science/~3/RPLm5nFZFnc/121213121343.htm

Nora Ephron mario balotelli mario balotelli jenny mccarthy espn3 kevin youkilis Tropical Storm Debby

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Red algae bloom closes Sydney's beaches, but probably not for long

Bloody waters before summer has even started may sound like a drag on tourism, but it's a mere drop in the sea for Australia.

By Helen Clark,?Contributor / November 28, 2012

A couple of young surfers play with a small wave during a morning surf at Coogee beach in Sydney, Australia, in October. A red algae bloom has closed 10 beaches so far in and around Sydney and up the more northerly Central Coast in Australia during the past 24 hours.

Daniel Munoz/Reuters/File

Enlarge

Don?t worry. It?s not blood. It?s not even poisonous, just an irritant to skin and eyes and to anyone hoping for a swim now that summer?s finally about to hit Sydney.

Skip to next paragraph

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does)

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) It's the end of the year, which means it's performance review season for many of you at work. Ideally, there should be no surprises in your review, but we've all thought that before. This year, give yourself a self-review so you'll have all the ammo you need to respond to criticism and suggest improvements long before your boss confronts you. Here's how to make that self-review less painful and more useful?not just for this year, but for your whole career.

Self-reviews are usually the worst part of performance review season. You're already busy, and now you have to sit down and take time out to fill out a document where you don't want to be too boastful but you don't want to call yourself out on your mistakes openly, either. Here's the clincher though: self-reviews only suck because you know they can (and likely will) be used against you when it comes time to do the review. Let's take the self-review process and turn it into something really useful.

In this post, we'll walk you through doing a real, private self-review, identifying your professional pain points and irritations, and then coming up with solutions that you can bring to the table when you meet with your boss. We'll also chat about how you can make the whole process even more painless next year.

Step One: Write Down What You Do, What Others Think You Do, and What You Should Be Doing

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) The first thing you need to do is get clear on what it is you actually do every day, and compare that with what your job description says you do. Take some time one afternoon?maybe on a Friday when you're doing your weekly review?to write down what you think your regular responsibilities are. Include all of the things that make your position what it is, but don't forget to include all of those other things your boss or colleagues saddle you with. You know, "other duties as assigned," either because someone else doesn't feel like doing it, or you have unique skills that make you the best for the job. Photo by Denisenko. (Shutterstock)

Once you have a good complete picture of all of the things you do at work, make a separate list of the things that are actually part of your job as advertised. If you can, look for a copy of the opening you applied for, or for a similar one that your company may be advertising. Doing this can be illuminating because you usually stumble on something that you probably should be doing, but don't. Usually it's harmless, outdated, or some corp-speak that doesn't translate into day-to-day duties, but keep your eye on it.

Once you've finished your two lists, arrange them so your most important and job-critical responsibilities are at the top. Now, assign each two letter grades from A to F to each. The first is how important and interesting the responsibility is to you. The second is how important you think the task is to your boss. If you see anything you hate doing but know is important to your company, make a note of it. If you see anything you love doing but you know it's not important to your role, make a note of that as well.

Step Two: Review Yourself from Your and Your Boss's Perspectives

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) Next, it's time to fill out those dreaded self-review forms. Don't worry: what makes our forms different is that first, we're going to keep the results private, and second, we're going to use forms that are actually useful. You'll want to do three quick critiques of yourself: how well you think you're doing from your perspective, how well you think you're doing from your boss' perspective, and how engaged you are with your work. Photo by Jacob B?tter.

Review Yourself from Your Perspective: Your employer probably has a self-review form they use for this purpose. If they do, use that?it's the best tool to get yourself in the mindset that you need to be in for the real thing. Just make two copies: one you can fill out and review on your own, and one you can return to your boss. We both know that the answers you give your boss will be massaged so they're guarded but honest, so you want a copy where you can really tear into yourself?or toot your own horn without worrying sounding vain, as the case may be. At it's core, whatever your form says, you should ask yourself these basic questions:

How well do you feel you've performed this year, on the whole? It's an irritating question, but remember, the only person seeing your answer this time is you. Be honest, and get your thoughts out about your overall performance. Have you been coasting? Why? Are you more energetic now that you're off that one project that kept you on-call on weekends?
What were some of your biggest accomplishments this year? List them all, and don't be shy. Think hard about this?these will eventually be some of the things you take to your real review and use as ammunition to show how valuable you are to your boss and to the company overall.
What areas or skills do you want to develop over the next year? This oft-asked question is usually interpreted as "how do you want to improve," but it should also be "what parts of your job do you want to streamline or eliminate next year?" Think of it in terms of how you can grow and what skills you can learn, but also how you can improve your job and spend more time doing the things about it that drew you to the job in the first place.
What are your goals for the coming year? Much like the previous question, this one should be more about moves you want to make, things you want to focus on, and in your case, since this is just between you and you, it can include things like switching departments, moving to a new job in (or outside) of the company, and how you're going to lay the groundwork to get there.

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) Review Yourself from Your Boss's Perspective: This one will take as much objectivity as you can muster. Put yourself in your boss's shoes and review yourself from his or her perspective, using the prioritized responsibilities we mentioned earlier. Start with the responsibilities you have that are most important to your boss, and write down how well you do those things, and how frequently you do them. Photo by Robyn Mackenzie (Shutterstock).

Again, if you can use the actual evaluation form that your boss uses (like last year's copy, for example) then use that. If not, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has some great template forms that you can use for this exercise.

The Narrative Form (MS Word) gives you a more conversational, essay-style form to fill out. It asks some basic questions about your overall performance, areas of exceptional performance that you think your boss will note (or that they've already praised you for,) areas of improvement, and your expectations for the coming year.
The Descriptive Scale Form (MS Word) is best for companies where the review process actually uses a score, or if your review form has bubbles on it for "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations," and so on. It's a bit longer, but it asks specifically targeted questions that are easier for you to answer from your boss's perspective. For example, "Holds self accountable for assigned responsibilities; sees through tasks to completion in a timely manner," has responses ranging from "exceptional" to "proficient" to "unsatisfactory." There's room under each topic for brief elaboration.

This may seem rough, but it's actually really useful. When it comes time for your actual review, think back to this exercise and figure out exactly how close you and your boss are on each of these areas. Ideally, your boss would answer these questions the same way you would. If you're not on the same page, or if you have no idea how your boss might think about a specific question, you may not be communicating enough with them. If you're worried about one of the questions, you may have stumbled on something you can bring up as something you'd like to improve, or get rid of entirely.

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) Find Out How Engaged You Are at Work: Reviewing your performance is important, but it's only part of the overall picture of you as an employee. You also want to take a step back and think about how engaged you are with your work and your company. Are you doing what you want to do or that you think you're good at, or are you just doing what you know how to do so you can draw a paycheck? Photo by Telekhovskyi (Shutterstock).

Gallup has 12 questions that measure this, published in the book First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently. Some may sound silly, but they're worth thinking about:

Do I know what is expected of me at work?
Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
At work, do my opinions seem to count?
Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?
Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
Do I have a best friend at work?
In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

Shoot from the hip here. The point is to draw from your gut, which is most likely to be truthful about the actual answers. For example, you should know offhand if you've been praised in the past week, or if you have someone at work you look forward to seeing every day or someone you'd invite over for dinner (eg, the "best friend.") You should know offhand whether you think your opinions matter, or if you have a chance to do work that you're really good at.

When you're finished, you'll have a remarkable picture of your personal morale. HR experts like to call it "employee engagement," but you can use it as a powerful self-evaluation tool. At the very least, your answers will reveal if you're happy at work (and what you're happy with,) whether you're unhappy but things are worth trying to salvage, or if you're so jaded it's time to leave. You can use your responses to identify those professional pain points that hold you back?not just in your job, but your career as a whole.

Step Three: Identify Your Pain Points and Bring Them Up To Your Boss

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) You've reviewed what you do well, what you don't do well, and matched it all up to your expectations and job description. Now, write down those things that you hate about your job. We're not talking about the fact that the coffee machine never seems to get cleaned, we're talking about the fact that you're on call more than your colleagues are, or the fact that you're supporting an ailing and old platform with no manufacturer support. These are functional things that you and your manager should sort out. Photo by Pressmaster (Shutterstock).

You also want to note the bigger career pain points that you have. If you're a software developer but you just don't have time to learn new languages or new technologies, that's not just a job problem, it's a career problem. If you're a project manager and want to get your PMP, bring it up to your manager?getting certified can only add to your value to the company. Think about your career growth overall and what may be limiting you about your current job. Bring them up to your manager, but come with solutions in mind that you can propose. Your boss may be willing to help, but having a solution to the problem in hand at the same time will go a long way towards getting what you need to be a better, stronger, more skillful you.

For Next Year (and Beyond): Keep a Work Diary and Get Regular Feedback

How to Do a Proper Self-Review and Identify Your Professional Pain Points (Before Your Boss Does) We know this is a lot of work for a performance review. Here's the secret though: you only have to do most of it if you've never done any of it before, or if you know there's a risk that you and your boss may not be on the same page about everything. For example, if you and your manager communicate often, there's no reason to do a review from their perspective?you know the two of you will see eye-to-eye anyway. Photo by ventdusud.

If you don't keep a work diary, now is a great time to start. Even journaling a day or week up to your review can give you a slice of your own life on paper. You can review it at a distance, feel energized by the things you accomplished, and reflect on whether the conflicts and irritations you have are big problems or little stuff. You'll get a dose of objectivity that you can apply to your job, and easily identify the things you love or hate about it.

Similarly, if you and your boss don't communicate often enough, see if you can schedule one-on-ones with them to get regular feedback and clarify your responsibilities. If you two don't agree on what's important and what you should spend your time doing, you'll never be successful. It may sound painful, but a half-hour every week or two can go a long way towards better reviews, bigger raises, and great references when you do move on to a better gig.

Finally, use your review exercises as a tool to build a real career plan you can follow. Don't just go to work every day and let it be something that passively happens to you between 8am and 6pm?take control of your professional life and give it some direction. Sometimes, knowing where you're going and what you're doing is the difference between having a "job" and a "career."

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/yRU3BcNAFhk/how-to-do-a-proper-self+review-and-identify-your-professional-pain-points-before-your-boss-does

affirmative action helicon zac efron and taylor swift real housewives of orange county bloom energy franklin graham jambalaya

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

?Marriage Matters? | protein wisdom

As my last post on this topic sparked a spirited debate here in our right-wing echo chamber, where no dissent is ever brooked and we all walk in ideological lockstep in order to oppress minorities and the poor through racism, sexism, nativism, and homophobia ? all while looking to poison the air and water and cause suffering in autistic children and the elderly in pursuit of a constant, monocle-clad greed ? I figured why not continue the discussion by introducing the kind of debates that don?t necessarily feature mewling, poisonous indictments against opponents of same-sex ?marriage? presented in mannered baby talk.

To that end, here?s Ryan Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation as well as the editor of?Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey and co-author (with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George) of the new book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, attempting to situate the debate over redefining marriage into what he calls its ?proper context?:

[...]

Some people wonder why conservatives choose to focus exclusively on same-sex marriage. The answer is simple: We don?t. First, conservatives always did?and still do?make other social and political efforts to strengthen the marriage culture. The push for same-sex marriage was brought to us. Second, now that this is the live debate, we can?t ignore it, for its outcome will have wider effects on the marriage culture that really is our main concern.

Long before there was a debate about same-sex marriage, there was a debate about marriage. It launched a ?marriage movement,? to explain why marriage was good for the men and women who were faithful to its demands, and for the children they reared.

Articles in mainstream magazines such as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead?s 1993 cover story for The Atlantic, ?Dan Quayle was Right,? documented how family fragmentation was wreaking havoc on society. In 1996 Mike and Harriet McManus launched Marriage Savers to combat marital breakdown, and in 2001 Wade Horn championed the Healthy Marriage Initiative for the Bush Administration. Their targets were high divorce rates and the rising birthrate for unmarried women. From pre-Cana programs to various fatherhood initiatives, examples could be multiplied ad nauseam.

Same-sex relationships weren?t on anyone?s radar. (It may be hard to remember, but until just recently same-sex marriage was inconceivable to almost everyone.) The marriage movement leaders? concern, like that of today?s leading conservative scholars and activists, was much broader.

So it?s not surprising that the leading opponent of redefining marriage today, Maggie Gallagher, was active throughout the ?80s and ?90s in this marriage movement. She wrote a book in the late ?80s on how the sexual revolution was ?killing family, marriage and sex? and ?what we [could] do about it;? in a 2000 book she made ?the case for marriage,? showing the many ways that marriage is better for couples than cohabitation.

The question of whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships didn?t take center stage until 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court claimed to find a constitutional right to it. Those who had been leading the marriage movement for decades had to ask themselves: Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages strengthen the marriage culture, or weaken it?

They saw that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships was not ultimately about expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Redefining marriage was about cementing a new idea of marriage in the law?an idea whose baleful effects they had spent years fighting. That idea?that romantic-emotional union is all that makes a marriage?couldn?t explain or support the stabilizing norms that make marriage fitting for family life. It could only undermine those norms.

Indeed, that undermining already had begun.? Disastrous policies like ?no-fault? divorce, too, were motivated by the idea that a marriage is made by romantic attachment and satisfaction?and comes undone when these fade.

Same-sex marriage would require a more formal and final redefinition of marriage as simple romantic companionship, obliterating the meaning the marriage movement had sought to restore to the institution.

Anderson?s argument mirrors one I?ve made in a more general sense in my discussions of? social conservatism as a kind of natural alliance with libertarianism / classical liberalism ? particularly as regards the way federalism is supposed to operate within our constitutional republic.? As Anderson points out here, it wasn?t the ?social cons? who chose this battle, nor is it the social cons who were necessarily focused on same-sex marriage, which they see as a relatively new social agenda being pushed by the very same people who had in earlier incarnations had pushed an agenda for, eg., cohabitation, no-fault divorce, non-traditional child-rearing relationships, etc.

That is, they see in the same-sex marriage push ulterior motives that have little to do with same-sex marriage per se and everything to do with, as Anderson puts it, ?cementing a new idea of marriage in the law?an idea whose baleful effects they had spent years fighting. That idea?that romantic-emotional union is all that makes a marriage?couldn?t explain or support the stabilizing norms that make marriage fitting for family life. It could only undermine those norms.?

Here, a social conservative is framing the marriage question in several ways:? first, placing it in the context of an earlier attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage by juxtaposing what they considered a healthy marriage culture against high divorce rates, single-parent homes, and out-of-wedlock birthrates.? And second by noting that the attempt to change the marriage culture legally has a history that pre-dates the same sex marriage push, while sharing its goal ? if indeed one buys the argument of marriage movement defenders that the goal is to weaken the hold traditional relationships have on societal organizations, affecting (in their view, and based on studies they cite) both the popular culture, the successful acculturation of children, and the relative health of a civil society ? down to questions of criminality or educational success.

My own concern ? and Anderson touches upon them here glancingly ? have to do with the legal implications of any change.? If marriage is no more than the idea ?that romantic-emotional union is all that makes a marriage? ? and this view takes hold legally and is established by SCOTUS precedent ? the proverbial unintended consequences (which to some I don?t believe are unintended at all, because I believe they care less about same sex marriage than they do about destabilizing traditional ?bourgeois? relationships) could be quite severe and far-reaching.

Conservatives tend to be cautious and prudent when it comes to decisions that perform, legally, an enormous break from long-standing social and political status quo (particularly if the status quo is and was successful).? Here, what Anderson notes is that those same people who are opposed to same-sex marriage on definitional and compositional grounds were already critical of the changes to the marriage culture that preceded the same sex marriage movement ? while at the same time laying the groundwork for it.

That is, they were already fighting what they believed to be assaults on traditional marriage before this latest attempt to redefine marriage and weaken its usefulness as a societal stabilizer for children and families.

The counter to this ? which oftentimes comes from libertarians who promote what they call optimal freedom ? is that the government should have no role in what comes to count as marriage.? But that is itself a rather slippery rhetorical move.? Because from the perspective of representative government, the only way ?the government? gets to make that determination is though an edict of the court or some governmental official ? while votes by the electorate in individual states pushed to establish an acceptable definition for marriage is really no more than allowing the people, not the government, to determine how they wish their states to run, with the government?s role then reduced to protecting the will of the electorate.

Which seems to me the federalist position and the libertarian position ? provided you aren?t among those libertarians who believe ?marriage? is a positive natural right, a position that commits you, were you to draw out the argument a bit, to allowing for all and any sort of consensual relationships to fit within the parameters of ?marriage? once it is redefined.

These are difficult questions, ones that aren?t helped along by cheap appeals to consensus, or attempts to shame those who disagree with same-sex marriage by labeling them homophobes.? In fact, the rejoinder to those kinds of arguments would be that sometimes adults have to make decisions that fly in the face of populist, media-driven waves because they are taking a longer view of the consequences of any legal changes that are not carefully thought through.

As I noted in my last post on the subject, I am fine with a state decided to change its definition of marriage ? the states being the proper experimental proving grounds for new ideas in a representative republic run democratically and answerable to constitutional law on both the state and federal levels.? But I reject the notion that because one state decides to change a definition, other states who disagree with those changes are thereby compelled by law to recognize that definition.

If civil unions ? which create a new category for what is a new thing entirely ? is an unacceptable compromise to same-sex marriage advocates, then surely the federalist solution should be.

That it?s not suggests to me that it isn?t the ?social cons? who are trying to drive a blue-nosed theocratic agenda; but rather the obverse is true, where those who are bent on destabilizing traditional societal structures, for whatever their purposes and motives, are committed to using the law and the courts to try to legislate from the bench ? something we on the right, be we libertarian or classical liberal or social /fiscal conservative, are supposed to denounce.

Discuss.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:46am
23 comments | Trackback

Source: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=45905

jerry angelo work it amy chua iowa gop meteor shower tonight annie oakley edc