The Family and Poverty

How’s this for a mind-blowing statistic: I just read in the Economist (so it must be a conservative conspiracy, right?) that ”Americans who finish high school, work full-time and wait until they are 21 and married before they have children have only a 2% chance of being poor.” Holy shit, right? That can’t possibly be true. Two percent?! I mean seriously, if you care about solving poverty, this statistic should blow you away.

 Especially because, as the Economist points out, all three are relatively simple criteria. Right? I mean, none of them requires your parents to be wealthy. None requires you to be of a certain gender, or race, or to be born in a nice neighborhood. Anyone can finish High School. It may be hard to get the job you want, but getting a full-time job of any kind isn’t impossible. Ok, I know, the economy sucks. Especially for us young people. But unless you insist on only taking the jobs that you want, that advance the career you want, getting a full-time job isn’t that hard. And anyone can wait until they are 21 and married before having kids. 

If you do all three of those relatively simple things, you are almost guaranteed not to be poor. Which means that nearly all of America’s poor do not satisfy these three criteria. I was absolutely floored when I read that. Because these three statistics point out the root causes of poverty in America. They have to, don’t they? 

Let’s look at these three stats again a little more carefully. The first is a failure of education. There is absolutely no excuse for kids to be failing High School. Short of having a serious brain disability such as downs syndrome, every single American teenager is fully capable of succeeding in High School academically. Let’s be honest – High School in the US is not exactly demanding.  Just ask the South Koreans – compared to their schools, US High Schools are a walk in the park.

Yet many are not graduating. In fact, only 57% of Black students in the class of 2008 graduated (I mention Blacks in particular because the Economist article bemoaned how Blacks in America are falling farther behind, and thus provided additional statistics on Blacks. Also, this week is the 50^th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s speech). That is an atrocious statistic. So about half of Blacks are already out of the running to make it in the 98% not poor category. 

The second statistic indicates a dual failure of education and the economy. The job market, especially for young people, is still really tough. The economy is out of recession, but it doesn’t really feel like it, the way the unemployment rate has stayed high – and that disguises millions of Americans who have given up on looking for a job or are on permanent “disability” because the jobs they qualify for no longer exist in America. Additionally, we’re not educating our young people to have the skills to compete in a rapidly changing labor market. 

As painful as it is for many to hear this, the third and final statistic is, pure and simple, a failure of old fashioned values and the family. Simply put, if you don’t have a baby before 21 and you get married, you qualify for the magic group of Americans that aren’t poor. Other statistics support this assertion: the Economist also reports that “fewer than 30% of children in the poorest third of white America live with both parents by the time their mother turns 40. Among the most affluent fifth, around 90% of children live in a household with both parents. Marriage has become a fault-line dividing American classes.”

When you consider that today 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock, you’re looking at nearly three-quarters of Blacks are already out of the running for candidacy in the “golden group”.

The importance of marriage and family are heightened further when you consider that the single most important statistical indicator of a child’s academic success is the level of education of the child’s mother – indicating that parental involvement, instilling the need for academic excellence and following up actively on a child’s progress, is extremely important. So the first issue – a failure of education – is really a family issue in disguise.

The gist of all this is: 

1.       1. We have identified three issues that are near-perfect predictors of non-poverty – and therefore provide powerful insight into poverty

2.       2. Of those three issues, two are directly linked to marriage and family. If you consider that Black unemployment is only 14.4% (14.4% of Blacks fail to qualify for the “golden group” by virtue of category 2), compared with 43% who fail to graduate High School and 72% that fail to wait till 21 and get married before having kids, these two marriage-related factors are the most important of the three.

Now, let me be clear on one thing: I hate it as much as anyone else when right-wing conservatives preach “family values” from their high horses; especially when what they really mean is “homosexuals are destroying America.” But there is simply no denying the facts: the family is the strongest guarantee against poverty. Strong families are – by far – the most potent antidote to poverty in America. 

The problem is that I’m not sure that the federal government can do much in terms of policy to promote strong families. But that’s clearly where the secret to conquering poverty lies.

Drones: a double-edged sword?

Hello Salon,

It's been pretty quiet on the Salon lately. I came across an article that seemed both highly relevant and quite likely to break the silence. At the very least, I think it's a provocative issue that deserves some real discussion and debate. And let me start by saying that I think there are a lot of legitimate points to be made on the issue and that it is multi-faceted, so any and all perspectives are encouraged.

My final class for my Middle East Studies MA is called Counter Terrorism. This past week we have been discussing the use of drones as a CT policy tool, and I read a very well-written and well-argued piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. I've reproduced it below, but the link is here:

In defense of Obama’s drone war

The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.

1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?

Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (b) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.

Imminent threat is obvious. If we know a freelance jihadist cell in Yemen is actively plotting an attack, we don’t have to wait until after the fact. Elementary self-defense justifies attacking first.
Al-Qaeda is a different matter. We are in a mutual state of war. Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war on the United States in 1996; we reciprocated three days after 9/11 with Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force — against al-Qaeda and those who harbor and abet it. (Such resolutions are the contemporary equivalent of a declaration of war, as evidenced in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.)

Regarding al-Qaeda, therefore, imminence is not required. Its members are legitimate targets, day or night, awake or asleep. Nothing new here. In World War II, we bombed German and Japanese barracks without hesitation.

Unfortunately, Obama’s Justice Department memos justifying the drone attacks are hopelessly muddled. They imply that the sole justification for drone attack is imminent threat — and whereas al-Qaeda is plotting all the time, an al-Qaeda honcho sleeping in his bed is therefore a legitimate target.

Nonsense. Slippery nonsense. It gives the impression of an administration making up criteria to fit the president’s kill list. No need to confuse categories. A sleeping Anwar al-Awlaki could lawfully be snuffed not because of imminence but because he was self-declared al-Qaeda and thus an enemy combatant as defined by congressional resolution and the laws of war.

2. But Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?

Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms. (Indeed, David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, suggests stripping such traitors of their citizenship, thereby formalizing their extra-constitutional status.)

Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing whether there were any German Americans among them — to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.

3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander in chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.

This looks troubling. Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding which individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?

Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.

Okay, you say. But today’s war is entirely different: no front line, no end in sight.
So what? It’s the jihadists who decided to make the world a battlefield and to wage war in perpetuity. Until they abandon the field, what choice do we have but to carry the fight to them?
We have our principles and precedents for lawful warmaking, and a growing body of case law for the more vexing complexities of the present war — for example, the treatment of suspected terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil. The courts having granted them varying degrees of habeas corpus protection, it is clear that termination by drone (a measure far more severe than detention) would be forbidden — unless Congress and the courts decide otherwise, which, short of a Taliban invasion from New Brunswick, is inconceivable.

Now, for those who believe that the war on terror is not war but law enforcement, (a) I concede that they will find the foregoing analysis to be useless and (b) I assert that they are living on a different and distant planet.

For us earthlings, on the other hand, the case for Obama’s drone war is strong. Pity that his Justice Department couldn’t make it.

 ------------------------------------------------

I don't want to make too many comments before turning the matter over to the Salon for debate and consideration. But let me say this: despite the temptation to take easy pot shots at President George W Bush's "war on terror" I don't think the notion of being at war with terrorist groups can be so nonchalantly discarded. And I think that Krauthammer's judgement that going after terrorists abroad is not law enforcement. If it isn't war, then I'm not sure we have a term for it yet.

Anyway, what do you all think about drones and drone use? A lot has been written on the subject, so I look forward to reading the articles you find enlightening and cogently argued. I think that the invention of the drone has forever changed warfare. What do we need to know and do to adapt to this revolutionary change?

Have at it, and I look forward to reading your comments!

- Cincinnatus

Is "laptop activism" a good thing?

Is “laptop activism” a step forward, or a step backward?

I recently got an email from Rolf Skar, the epically-named Green Peace forest initiative guy, announcing that, because of support for online campaigns, two major victories have been won this year already. First Asia Pulp and Paper – the largest deforester in the world, I think – has agreed to stop cutting Indonesian rainforest and to switch to sustainable forestry. If they follow through (and they might not) this would be a huge victory. Second, Yum! (the company that owns lots of fast food brands like KFC and Taco Bell) has officially released new company policies that (again, if followed) would prevent any of its sub-companies from using pulp or paper products from rainforests. Again, a huge victory.

The victories came after a couple of years of concerted public action and pressure from Green Peace, and initiatives that I and millions of other Americans (mostly young people, too) signed onto. And almost all of it was done online. Sure, I contribute about $15 a month to Green Peace in support of initiatives like this one, but even that transaction takes place automatically, online.

Pete has also been engaged in online activism, through the Move On program, to save the forest behind his house in San Franciso from destruction. I don't know if he has been successful, but I sure signed it – electronically, of course.

My question is this: all of this activism seems and sounds great. But is it? I mean, I feel that my generation (people born at the tail end (the last two decades or so) of the last century), is more socially aware and active than any other in human history. Yet at the same time we are, hands down, the laziest generation to walk the Earth. We spend almost all of our time on our laptops, browsing the net, writing emails, updating Facebook statuses, etc. We rarely get out and do anything in the real world.

So which is better? Can increased online activism replace real-world activism? And by that I mean marches, strikes, protests, civic engagement, volunteering in the community, participating in local politics, voting, etc. Sure, more of one doesn't necessarily mean less of the other, but it seems that things are headed that way. I mean, if young people could vote online, you'd see turnout among the young go to 100%. But ask people my age to go to the local polling station (even finding out where it is located is often too much) and stand in line for an hour and turnout plummets to what it is (roughly 50% - a pathetic figure).

Does the increase in online activism more than cancel out our lack of willingness to get off our computers and engage with people and problems face-to-face? What do you guys think?

Spiritual But Not Religious

As this is my first blog post in an eternity, I have a bizarre desire to write on a perspective I actually have very mixed feelings on. Recently, an article in the NY Times was published by a Jewish Rabbi, assessing the topic of spirituality and religiosity. According to the article, almost 1 in 5 Americans identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” In other words, they have some feeling, some intuition of something greater, but feel allergic to institutions.

I think I must have this allergy.

In fact, I am certain I developed this allergy at a very young age. Perhaps it's like peanuts and eggs, where it is argued whether early introduction creates tolerance or an allergic reaction. The jury is still out on that.

The rabbi goes on in the article to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of being religious. The idea of being part of a religious institution involves submitting your will to others, especially those you disagree with. According to the rabbi, institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial. They can both enable and shield wrongdoers. I have experienced and seen this on a broad level as well as on a very personal level.

Yet the rabbi argues that it is only through the lens of a community organized by religious institution that we can effect change and mobilization on spiritual matters. I have also experienced and seen this.  There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a meeting.  It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference.

I uphold this completely! Individuals coming together for a common good is powerful! What do you do, though, when the premise does not allow for discussion? Or if there is discussion, it is only to point out your wrongdoing, to gently and lovingly correct your missteps. Does "listening and learning", as he says, only work within strict parameters in religion? I have a feeling that as a reformed Jew, he probably does in fact encourage healthy debate. Nothing negative, I'm sure, as that would squash any positive spirit about a religious meeting. With more traditionally static institutions, though, what avenue for listening and learning should instead be traversed? Is it impossible in very large institutions? Should we merely accept that change can only be very, ponderously slow? That may be reasonable, as anything large and structured is generally slow to change.
Peering a bit further, however, what if it is assumed that dynamism in thought might actually corrode at the strength of the institution to enact positive change? I have a feeling that by "submitting your will to others", this rabbi did not mean to never hope for something different. What light can be shed on this seeming dilemma?

He says, spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world.
What do you do when this dissatisfaction with the world is not in line with your own dissatisfaction? And how does one balance dissatisfaction with the institution over its potential for good and improvement?

His last statement is beautiful. If only all religious institutions could espouse this viewpoint: Being religious does not mean you have to agree with all the positions and practices of your own group; I don’t even hold with everything done in my own synagogue, and I’m the Rabbi. But it does mean testing yourself in the arena of others.

I do not want to pose my own feelings too much on this issue, rather would like to hear your thoughts on this topic. I mostly have questions I would like answered! Haha, or help in answering, as I don't think there really is one solid answer. I will ask one particular question that is most important to me, then hope that you will expound on your own feelings on everything, not just this question. How does one reconcile these two: accepting that you won't be able to agree with the institution on everything, while at the same time not sacrificing those who are marginalized or put to spiritual isolation?

Have at it, brainiacs of most brilliant introspection!!! ;)

---------
Here is the article, if you want to read the full length version.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/?iid=op-article-mostpop1

A new start: let's be sober

Hello friends,

I know all of you who are authors on this blog, though you may not all know each other. That's fine: you'll get to know each other here!

I thought I would get our juices flowing with something of a cop-out post mixed with a healthy degree of shameless plug: instead of sharing a provocative, thoughtful article I found on the interwebs, I'm sharing one of my own posts, from my blog :P read it here.

As the one of the purposes of the Salon is to seek truth, I thought it was relevant. I mean it when I say that we're never completely right about anything. We see through a glass, darkly. The perfect light of pure truth won't come until the next life. So while we're sharing our thoughts and beliefs and making our voices heard, let's keep a spirit of humility, admitting the limitations of our understanding, and an openness to additional light and truth.

As always, comments actively encouraged! Feel free to check out the rest of my blog if you wish (another shameless plug!). It's just my personal musings, so read at your own risk :)

Cincinnatus

The hole we're all in

Hello again everyone! It's been a long time since there's been any activity on the salon. I've been busy sticking my head in the sand, trying to get through school. And I imagine everyone else has been painfully busy with life as well. My internship this summer includes as a major task watching the news and keeping my boss updated, so I find myself more able to plug into issues of relevance that are prime subjects for discussion in the salon. So here's to a revival of debate and discussion!

I just read a New York Times editorial by Thomas Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01friedman.html?hp) that's worth reading. He describes the disastrous "Bin Laden Decade" from 2001 to 2011 in which the US, Israel, and the Arab World all dug massive holes for themselves - holes that we're all going to have to dig ourselves out of, eventually. But now we're far less capable of doing so then ever.

For instance, the UN in 2002 published a report on development in the Arab World which basically said the region had three obstacles to overcome: a lack of freedom, a lack of quality education and knowledge, and a lack of women's development and participation. I think the UN report was right on - those are precisely the region's most pressing and fundamental problems, and solving them will do more to help overcome all the other problems rampant in the region (unemployment, religious extremism, etc). But the ten years spanning 2001-2010 saw dictators clamp down ever tighter on their people's freedoms across the Arab World, while education continued to be lacking, and women's rights eroded steadily, or maintained their ground but did not advance. All of this, of course, thanks to US foreign policy in the region which placed anti-terrorism efforts above tackling the REAL problems.

In the US, our good friend George W Bush simultaneously cut taxes, increased spending on health care, and then started two unbelievably costly wars. If anyone is to blame for the massive level of US debt (now more than 65% of GDP, and due to rise well above 100% in the next few years), it is George Bush. The recent recession isn't helping things either, making it ever harder to make the necessary changes to put our country in the position to pay down the debt, or at least hold it steady at a reasonable level (the EU accession criteria for new potential member states includes debt levels not higher than 60% - under these rules, if the US were a European country, we wouldn't be allowd to join the EU). And, of course, our dearly beloved politicians, instead of tackling the REAL problems (ballooning debt and an aging population), prefer to attack each other, because it's always easier to criticize an opponent than to solve difficult problems.

Finally, Israel has had years of peace, stability, and a willing negotiating partner
(Mahoud Abbas has been the president of the Palestinian Authority since 2005) to solve its existential crisis by withdrawing from the occupied West Bank and gaining recognition of a Jewish state in exchange for its reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian one. But rather than seize the opportunity to act, another dear friend of ours, Benjamin Netanyahu, has let the historic - and probably never to return - chance slip away in exchange for continued popularity at home. He has aggressively pursued Jewish settlement in the West Bank (there are now approximately 600,000 Jews living in the occupied territory), a move that has strengthened support for him and his party in the shor-term, but which leaves the question of Israel's legitimacy (as well as its claim to be a genuine democracy) up in the air for later generations of leaders to deal with. After all, if you don't want to deal with the REAL problem, what's better than putting it off for others to solve later on? It's certainly easier to do that than solve it yourself.

So that leaves us all standing in deep holes, with scant resources with which to extricate ourselves. The next decade will tell if political leaders in the Arab World, Israel, and the US can generate the courage, strength, and authority necessary to finally address and solve the real problems - and believe me, there are no easy fixes when it comes to REAL problems; the solutions are painful, difficult, and take a long time to bear fruit. It's a good sign you're addressing the core issues if the solutions are painful and long-term. No one is going to like it, but it's the only way out of the hole. So (speaking to our esteemed leaders), any takers?

Islamiphobia

I can't help but feel part of the problem I detest while posting this blog entry. Rehashing on the topic of the New York mosque only adds to the insanity that is the islamiphobic dialogue polluting our media. In reality people should have left the incredibly narrow minded opinions of a bigoted minority die in quiet solitude. This post is then generated in hopes that the chaotic hate spewed in America may one day be extinct. My own words fail me in describing how such unreasonable hatred is shredding America apart and I feel that I must borrow on Charton Heston's speech. Below is an abridged version of Heston's NRA speech he made in Colorado shortly after the Columbine tragedy. I think the truth found here about the NRA issue speaks just as well for the mosque issue:

********************************************************************************************************************************

They say, "Don't come." I'm sorry for that. This is our country. As Americans, we are free to travel wherever we want, in our broad land. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame. That we don't care as much as they do. Or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton. Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd. Because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that is dividing our country. Politically. Racially. Geographically. In every way, whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, high school gangs and cliques. The American competitive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many, too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, for money or for ratings. The vilification is savage.

This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions each less free, united only by hatred of one another. In the past 10 days we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps. One camp would be the majority, people who believe our Founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our country. The other camp would be a large minority of people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms. This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment versus those who don't. But instead it is spun as those who believe in murder versus those who don't.

But we're not the rustic reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents, and yes, movie stars. But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile, and confrontational and disrespectful. On both sides. It is forgotten that we are first, Americans. I am asking all of us on both sides to take one step back from the edge. Then another step. And another. However many it takes to get back to that place where we are all Americans. Different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible. This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than that which divides us. And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very bill of rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction, when an isolated terrible event occurs, our phones ring demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food. The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom on fresh graves.

Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims. Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be brought to you by sponsors. That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. We are often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it. Our mission is to remain, as our vice-president said, a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on this planet. We cannot -- we must not -- let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.

Now, if you disagree, that's your right. I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land." Let us go from this place, from this huge room, renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forever more, let it always set on We, the People. Secure in our land of the free and home of the brave.

-------- Charlton Heston, April 1999