1) \u00a0This was in yesterday\u2019s Wall Street Journal, non-paywalled: \u201cIgnoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families; Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0They authors write:<\/p>\n Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can\u2019t change private behavior, and anyway, maybe the statistical relationships between smoking and cancer are really caused by some other third variable. Wouldn\u2019t some suspect that the scientists who raised these claims were driven by something\u2014ideology, tobacco money\u2014other than science?\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yet in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers, fewer reporters, and no one in the executive branch of government directly addresses what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They then continue by citing much of the same statistics that we\u2019ve seen countless times before that it matters, and matters a lot, for a child to be raised by mom and dad living in the same home, and lamenting that policymakers are unwilling to acknowledge the problem.<\/p>\n But this is no surprise. \u00a0The unspoken operating philosophy is that \u201ca child needs a father like a fish needs a bicycle<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0And it absolutely is an ideology that drives the insistence that there\u2019s nothing wrong with single-parenting that a hefty dose of government subsidy couldn\u2019t fix.<\/p>\n 2) \u00a0From National Review Online, \u201cThe \u2018Royal\u2019 Clinton Baby<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0Apparently, the media is fawning over the prospect of a Clinton granddaughter, and fawning over Chelsea Clinton as a woman of great accomplishment (even though her \u201cachievements\u201d have largely been academic successes and positions handed to her due to her name and connections). \u00a0Really, I\u2019m not sure about this: \u00a0are \u201crank and file\u201d Americans doing any such fawning, or is it purely a few media types doing more than enough fawning to make up for the disinterest of the rest of us. \u00a0How broad a base does the \u201cHillary in 2016\u201d movement actually have, or is it just half-a-dozen Slate writers and MSNBC commentators?<\/p>\n Then again, I never understood the obsession with the Kennedys either, neither the conviction held by many that, if only Kennedy hadn\u2019t been shot, subsequent generations would have experienced nothing but peace and equality, nor the belief that Kennedy \u201cheirs\u201d had positions of power as their birthright.<\/p>\n 3) \u00a0An article on NPR linked to by Ann Althouse<\/a>, \u201cTo Keep Business Growing, Vendors Rebrand Pot\u2019s Stoner Image<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0Here\u2019s the key quote:<\/p>\n \u201cBut the whole point of marketing is to grow a business by reaching people who are on the fence about trying marijuana.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And Althouse says, \u201cGet ready. This is where we are now, and there is no way back. The link goes to NPR, where the headline is \u201cTo Keep Business Growing, Vendors Rebrand Pot\u2019s Stoner Image\u201d and there\u2019s a photo of a broadly smiling wholesome female marketer. NPR itself is participating in this optimistic rebranding. We\u2019re not just talking about decriminalization. We\u2019re talking about promotion and encouragement.\u201d<\/p>\n Which is a far ways away from the claims that we have to decriminalize pot because of the young people for whom a single criminal conviction takes away their otherwise-bright future, and because of the supposedly-massive number of black men jailed for the \u201cvictimless\u201d crime of selling pot.<\/p>\n I suppose, given the number of times I read articles on pot where commenters dive in to say, \u201cI smoke pot every day and I\u2019m at the top of my highly-demanding technical field,\u201d it shouldn\u2019t be a big suprise, but I\u2019d never before seen a statement as direct as this: \u201cwe\u2019re in the business of getting more people to smoke pot.\u201d \u00a0The closest I\u2019d seen before was an optimistic suggestion that maybe alcoholics might be persuaded to switch to pot and become mellow potheads rather than angry drunks.<\/p>\n What next? \u00a0If there is no social stigma, if there is a large and vocal crowd insisting that pot has no negative consequences, even while we rush to ban smoking as extensively as we can without actually banning it outright (even treating e-cigarettes in the same way to a point that\u2019s all about ideology, not science), what will happen to pot consumption in the next generation?<\/p>\n You\u2019re not going to tell me, by the way, that the over-21-only restriction will be effective. \u00a0How do you believable send the message that if you\u2019re 20, pot is harmful, but not if you\u2019re 21? \u00a0People generally believe that the 21 age limit for alcohol is arbitrary, and their willingness to comply is purely a matter of willingness to follow the laws, not a belief that they\u2019re sensible laws. <\/p>\n Maybe it\u2019ll be appealing to the same minority as drink-to-get-drunk on a regular basis \u2014 because most of us don\u2019t drink-to-get-drunk, even though alcohol is legal. \u00a0Most of us have better things to do, or family or other responsibilities. \u00a0Maybe the net number of people who are interested in pot\/alcohol\/etc. is limited anyway.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s not what these marketers seem to think. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 1) \u00a0This was in yesterday\u2019s Wall Street Journal, non-paywalled: \u201cIgnoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families; Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family.\u201d \u00a0They authors write: Suppose a scientific conference on cancer prevention never addressed smoking, on the grounds that in a free society you can\u2019t change private […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n