One day after NBC's ''Today'' celebrated the ''end of traditional marriage,'' CBS's ''Early Show'' went even further, entertaining the view that marriage is an ''unnatural'' institution and a ''morality cage.'' CBS anchor Erica Hill teased a segment on Oct. 12: ''You know, as much as we all may love a good wedding, more and more women are saying, 'I don't need one!' They're either getting married later in life, or deciding 'I'm not getting married at all.' In fact, according to one poll, nearly half of Americans under the age of 40 think marriage is becoming obsolete.'' The guests CBS brought on to discuss this trend were not shy in expressing their disdain for traditional marriage. CBS invited ''sexologist'' Logan Levkoff (whose work is featured on the liberal Huffington Post ) and ''relationship expert'' Matt Titus (who touts himself as ''the nation's top dating coach and an authority on sex love and relationships'') to discuss changing attitudes towards marriage. No mainstream voices were included. Or, rather, give their completely feminist and left-wing spin against marriage. Titus opened the discussion with a shot at marriage: ''Marriage is an artificial institution. I mean, it's basically a morality cage for men.'' Titus grew even more scornful: ''Think about it. Men are supposed to run around the forest and propagate the species and do it multiple times a day. Do you think that we're supposed to be with one person for the rest of our lives? It's unnatural, and if it was the case we probably would not be sitting here right now.'' Of course, the institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years, and people are still around. But perhaps Titus doesn't think modern men are capable of committing themselves to one person for life. (Which is odd, considering the fact that Titus is married , and that he acknowledges he hit ''rock bottom'' after committing infidelity.) And the women on the show agreed. Indeed, the women on the show seemed to argue that men were gradually becoming unnecessary. Levkoff chimed in: ''There's no question that marriage is a social construct that I think does not apply to everyone these days. And now that women are taking over the world, we don't need you as much.'' Hill picked up on Levkoff's anti-male theme: ''There was a time when women needed a husband. And there are so many places in the world where they do, because otherwise they can't work, they can't support their families, they can't take care of their children. They needed that financial aspect, that financial security. Well now, women take care of themselves.'' So only women stuck in the Dark Ages need marriage for financial support. Liberated modern women don't need it anymore. Levkoff also attacked the notion of sexual morality as irrelevant: ''Women were getting married at young ages also because it legitimized their sexual desires and their sex lives, because we couldn't talk about women being sexual outside of wedlock. We don't need that anymore. We have the freedom.'' Titus was even more radical in pushing sexual irresponsibility: ''Do you really think that the genders are supposed to be together and cohabitate? I mean, men and women are so different. Once the passion is gone and the sex dies and the kids have been raised to a certain point, what's left?'' Even Levkoff and Hill were scandalized at this, interjecting: ''What about the yin and the yang?'' and ''What about companionship? What about having someone to truly grow old with?'' But Titus wouldn't relent: ''You know what, just because we all get ugly doesn't mean we have to hang onto the person we're with.'' So relationships are all about looks, and relationships should end when looks fade? From a self-touted 'nation's top dating coach) this advice rings rather shallow. Marriage has also traditionally played a role in child-bearing and child-raising. But Levkoff attacked marriage's role in child-raising, as well: ''I'm having two kids, and it definitely takes a village, and a partner would be nice to raise a family. But with reproductive technology, women can do a lot of things on their own. We are players in the game of life, and not just child-bearers anymore.'' ''It takes a village,'' of course, was the mantra of Hillary Clinton . The larger community (or in actuality, the government) can take care of children – no family is needed for child-raising. Titus then provided the logical conclusion: ''When a man can leave what he needs in a cup and a woman can take that and have a child, you know what? Men are expendable.'' Titus is correct. Men would be useless in this brave new feminist world, where commitment counts for nothing. Marriage would be rendered obsolete. And CBS and NBC are helping to usher this world in.
Continue reading …Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot tour Ubuntu 11.10 – Review, Overview, First Thoughts Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot Preview [HD] ReginaOwen says: The World Welcomes Oneiric Ocelot: Ubuntu 11.10 Launched http://t.co/huXiVuB6
Continue reading …Members of the Occupy Wall Street protest are growing skeevier and skeevier—at least in bombast Bill O’Reilly’s eyes. To hear him tell it, the “crackheads” are dealing dope, having al fresco sex and drawing rats by the hordes in their festering campsite at Manhattan’s Zucotti Park, notes Gawker. Even…
Continue reading …Scientists ask for names to be removed after mentions of climate change and sea-level rise taken out by Texas officials Officials in Rick Perry’s home state of Texas have set off a scientists’ revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state’s environmental agency. By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. “None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed,” said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre. “To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does,” Lester said. “We can’t be censored.” Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer’s season of wildfires and drought. However, Perry, in his run for the Republican nomination, has elevated denial of science, from climate change to evolution, to an art form. He opposes any regulation of industry, and has repeatedly challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Texas is the only state to refuse to sign on to the federal government’s new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. “I like to tell people we live in a state of denial in the state of Texas,” said John Anderson, an oceanography at Rice University, and author of the chapter targeted by the government censors. That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. “The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax,” said Anderson. But scientists said they still hoped to avoid a clash by simply avoiding direct reference to human causes of climate change and by sticking to materials from peer-reviewed journals. However, that plan began to unravel when officials from the agency made numerous unauthorised changes to Anderson’s chapter, deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction. “It is basically saying that the state of Texas doesn’t accept science results published in Science magazine,” Anderson said. “That’s going pretty far.” Officials even deleted a reference to the sea level at Galveston Bay rising five times faster than the long-term average – 3mm a year compared to .5mm a year – which Anderson noted was a scientific fact. “They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence – it was edited or eliminated,” said Anderson. “That’s not scientific review that’s just straight forward censorship.” Mother Jones has tracked the changes . The agency has defended its actions. “It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it,” Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. “Information was included in a report that we disagree with.” She said Anderson’s report had been “inconsistent with current agency policy”, and that he had refused to change it. She refused to answer any questions. Campaigners said the censorship by the Texas state authorities was a throwback to the George Bush era when White House officials also interfered with scientific reports on climate change. In the last few years, however, such politicisation of science has spread to the states. In the most notorious case, Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who is a professed doubter of climate science, has spent a year investigating grants made to a prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, when he was at a state university in Virginia. Several courts have rejected Cuccinelli’s demands for a subpoena for the emails. In Utah, meanwhile, Mike Noel, a Republican member of the Utah state legislature called on the state university to sack a physicist who had criticised climate science doubters. The university rejected Noel’s demand, but the physicist, Robert Davies said such actions had had a chilling effect on the state of climate science. “We do have very accomplished scientists in this state who are quite fearful of retribution from lawmakers, and who consequently refuse to speak up on this very important topic. And the loser is the public,” Davies said in an email. “By employing these intimidation tactics, these policymakers are, in fact, successful in censoring the message coming from the very institutions whose expertise we need.” Climate change scepticism Rick Perry Sea level Climate change Texas Climate change Oceans Virginia Utah United States Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Under mounting pressure from the courts, where he is a defendant in three trials, the Italian prime minister leads an increasingly fractious party into today’s vote • Read all tweets from John Hooper • Follow John Hooper on Twitter Silvio Berlusconi Italy John Hooper guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Drug ‘cocktail’ killed Michael Jackson says sleep therapy expert; Comedian Chris Tucker faces foreclosure on mansion; Taylor Swift launches fragrance and donates 6000 books to Pa. library. (Oct. 14)
Continue reading …Police say 10 people in a Wall Street related protest have been arrested at a Seattle park. The Occupy Seattle protesters were detained after Westlake Park closed late Thursday night. (Oct. 14)
Continue reading …The funniest thing over the last couple of weeks in the world of politics is no longer the Republican Presidential nomination, which for several months in a row has been the best sitcom on TV. But the building panic from conservatives about Occupy Wall Street has replaced the presidential race as the most delightful show to watch. Eric Cantor is talking about mobs in the street , and Glenn Beck is doing maybe his best meltdown ever (and that’s saying something, because Beck has had some doozies). Conservatives by the truckload are freaking out all over the place. What makes it even more fun for me is that their panic exactly echoes the kind of panic conservatives have always shown about the idea of democracy and taking on the monied interests throughout American history. In my book on the history of the American political debate, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be , I discussed how conservatives throughout our history have always echoed each other on these subjects no matter what the era. Here’s a sampling: Written in 1776 by a pro-British Anglican Bishop: “If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin.” In the 1790s, friend of the big New York bankers of his day Alexander Hamilton was at a dinner party, and yelled at a pro-democracy advocate: “Your people, sir – your people is a great beast.” An ally of Hamilton’s wrote: “A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of natural history. Its omens are always sinister. … It is always on trial here, and the issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections, no good man but shudders at its miseries. No honest man but proclaims its frauds, and no brave man but draws his sword against its farce.” In the 1830s, conservative hero John C. Calhoun (who first forged the bond between the idea of states’ rights and conservative politics) wrote: “The will of the majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democracy is incompatible with liberty.” In the post-Civil War era, where the right-wing philosophy of Social Darwinism reigned supreme, conservatives were distressed about the idea of poor and working people voting and then taking from the rich. Charles Adams wrote, “Universal suffrage can only mean in plain English, the government of ignorance and vice – it means a European, and especially Celtic, proletariat on the Atlantic Coast; an African proletariat on the shores of the Gulf, and a Chinese proletariat on the Pacific.” And his contemporary Francis Parkman added, “There is probably no sweeter experience in the world than that of a penniless laborer … when he learns that by casting his vote in the right way, he can strip the rich merchant … of a portion of his gains.” These anti-democratic sentiments certainly did not cease in the modern era — all you have to do is look at all the Republican efforts to deny the right to vote to so many citizens to understand that. And their fears of demonstrators are vivid. Look at this quote, which certainly reflected the views of people in power like Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, from conservative author Samuel Huntington in a report he wrote in the 1970s: “Some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy. … A democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” From the anti-American Revolution Tories of the 1770s to the Glenn Beck/Eric Cantor conservatives of today, conservatives always have been on the side of the wealthiest and most powerful in society, and always have been absolutely panic stricken when people get out in the streets to protest the abuses of the rest of us by the economic elites. Conservatives don’t like democracy; they don’t want the poor or the young or people of color to vote; they don’t like demonstrators raising hell about the powers that be. The panic by these conservatives is, as I said at the beginning of this post, as funny as can be: you can’t make up stuff as genuinely unhinged as Glenn Beck’s reaction to Occupy, he is far funnier than any satire of him could be. More importantly, though, the reactions of these conservatives — so like the reactions of conservatives throughout American history who have been on the wrong side of every big issue — give reassurance that the folks at Occupy Wall Street are on the right side of history.
Continue reading …The power of celebrity certainly carries more weight than any care a public radio station in New York City might have about looking fair and balanced. WNYC radio has signed up leftist actor Alec Baldwin — “Occupy Wall Street” supporter, Cheney-death-joking potential Democratic candidate for Mayor or Congress — to do a podcast called “Here's the Thing.” WNYC's selling this dabbling podcast as potentially surprising: “Alec sidesteps the predictable by taking listeners inside the dressing rooms, apartments, and offices of people such as comedian Chris Rock, political strategist Ed Rollins and Oscar winner Michael Douglas….Here’s the Thing: Listen to what happens when a man you think you know surprises you .” Baldwin claimed to Dave Itzkoff at The New York Times he wouldn't have an agenda — including that possible political candidate thing? Mr. Baldwin, who also hosts “The New York Philharmonic This Week” on WQXR and has been a guest host of “Studio 360 With Kurt Andersen,” said in a phone interview that his “number one” interest in creating the podcast “was to find a way where you could talk to people and you don't feel like you have an agenda, and then they wind up saying everything you hoped they would say.” He added: “I don't mean in a way to hang themselves or trip themselves up. Nothing embarrassing. I'm going to talk to Ed Rollins, and I'm going to say to him: 'Convince me. Convince me that I should be voting for your candidates.'” Baldwin's debut podcast on October 24 will feature Douglas. WNYC said that coming guests will also include Kathleen Turner; Erica Jong and her daughter, Molly Jong-Fast; long-forgotten talk show host Dick Cavett; and the reality-TV personality Kris Kardashian Jenner.
Continue reading …