‘Shut Up, Moron’

That’s a direct quote, one of the nicer things my children say to each other. Because there are six of them — the oldest 21, the youngest 7 — my kids have to put up with lots of stuff, including frequent verbal abuse from their siblings.

Which is a good thing, I think, in the sense that Marine boot camp at Parris Island is a good thing: You survive this, and whatever comes next isn’t quite so bad.

My wife is one of seven kids in her family, a factor that I credit for her admirable emotional resiliency. She is not a “drama queen.” She is not a “high maintenance” personality.

This anecdotal evidence informs my skepticism toward the claim by British researchers that only children are happier:

One of the widest-ranging research projects on family life conducted in Britain has revealed that the fewer siblings children have, the happier they are — and that only children are the most contented.
The findings, shared exclusively with the Observer, suggest that “sibling bullying” could be part of the problem, with 31% of children saying they are hit, kicked or pushed by a brother or sister “quite a lot” or “a lot”. Others complain of belongings being stolen by siblings and being called hurtful names. . . .
The findings are based on in-depth questionnaires completed by 2,500 young people, which have been analysed by Gundi Knies from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex where the Understanding Society study is based. She suggested that factors such as competition for the parents’ attention or the fact that toys, sweets or space need to be shared could be to blame.

One blogger mocked: “This could be fodder for those advocating for population control . . . Or to convince Michelle Duggar to tie those tubes already.”

Hold your mockery for a moment, and think about the social-science methodology of that research: Asking kids if they’re happy — their subjective assessment of their own happiness — is not necessarily going to tell you anything about how well-adjusted they are.

To return to the Parris Island analogy, if you surveyed Marines in boot camp, their self-reported happiness might not be too high, but the purpose of boot camp isn’t to make the recruits happy, it’s to prepare them for military careers. And the purpose of the family is to prepare children for life.

Furthermore, the British researchers offer no separate analysis of children’s happiness correlated to their parents’ marital status. If, as I suspect, a sizeable proportion of the children with more siblings came from families with never-married, divorced or re-married parents (welfare mothers, step-families, etc.), then the reported “unhappy” feelings likely resulted from circumstances other than the number of siblings, per se.

Rather than being overly impressed with the supposed “scientific” findings of this British study, then, I would refer you to the vast research showing that the best environment for children (however few or numerous their siblings) is to be raised by both biological parents, who are married to each other.

The British study’s reported findings are therefore misleading. Why? Because if this research encourages married-parent families to have fewer children — if more married couples limit themselves to just one or two kids — then a smaller percentage of society’s children will be raised in such families.

Allan Carlson has frequently referred to the marital birth rate (i.e., the average number of children born to each married couple) as the best overall indicator of the condition of family in society. Carlson has observed that, since the 1960s, the United States has “witnessed mounting disruption of American families, marked by a low marriage rate, a very high rate of divorce, soaring illegitimacy, and a sharp decline in marital fertility.”

Common sense tells us that these various phenomena are somehow related, and I think that all of these phenomena are consequences of the rise of the Contraceptive Culture — the idea that reduced fertility is essential to a better life.

If my wife and I had stopped at one child, yes, that child would have been happy. But we didn’t stop there, and so five other children share that happiness. Not that the kids always appreciate this beneficial experience. They constantly tease and taunt and torment each other.

“Shut up, moron.”

Sounds like happiness to me.

The Devil Wears Nada

Anne Hathaway likes being naked. As a matter of fact, she’s pretty sure you want to see more of her naked:

Fans of Anne Hathaway will get to see a lot of her in “Love and Other Drugs.” The 28-year-old actress is nearly naked — a lot.
“Well, I’ve had a chip on my shoulder since ‘The Princess Diaries’ where my nude scene was cut. So I’ve been trying to make up for lost time ever since then,” she joked. . . .
“One of the things was that when you’re in the early throes of passion and lust and love, you spend a lot of time unclothed. And the beginning of our characters’ relationship is at that moment. Obviously we go to a deeper place of love and companionship and intimacy.”

I will not name the irresponsible person who sent me that story about “passion” and “lust” and Anne Hathaway nude. Because it would be wrong to identify the irresponsible person who sent me an e-mail with the subject line, “Hathaway’s cheap bid for another Rule 5 Sunday moment.”


That’s just wrong. Why should we be forced to watch Jake Gyllenhaal manhandle Anne Hathaway? We don’t want to see Jake with his dirty paws all over her like that. What we want — and Anne knows we want it — is to see her naked. Continue reading The Devil Wears Nada →

Except It’s Not Called Newsweek

“In this climate, there should be room for a general-interest magazine to reinvent the old middlebrow formula. There should be room for a magazine that counterprograms against the ceaseless ephemera of much of the online world and offers things you will remember, a magazine that doesn’t endlessly chase buzz, that isn’t coastal urban journalists writing ceaselessly for each other, that doesn’t aim for insider-ish horserace gossip when covering politics, that doesn’t chase the same upscale liberal audience that every other media outlet is chasing.”
— David Brooks, New York Times

If you actually want a magazine like that, it won’t be edited by a celebrity-mongering cosmopolitan trans-Atlantic expatriate Brit like Tina Brown.

A great magazine might have first-hand reporting from Afghanistan, with contributions from thoughtful writers like Roger Scruton, Quin Hillyer and Paul Johnson. A truly great magazine might point out the idiocy of dimwit celebrities like Meghan McCain, or introduce readers to the brilliance of Hillaire Belloc.

Such a magazine would offer a year’s subscription for just $49 — and might occasionally employ a freelance journalist clever enough to point out that a subscription to the American Spectator would make an excellent Christmas gift for that special someone on your list.

EXCLUSIVE: Copy of Restraining Order in Palin vs. Gawker Copyright Lawsuit

Click here to see the order by U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa (PDF).


UPDATE: Background from Associated Press:

A federal judge on Saturday ordered Gawker Media to pull leaked pages of Sarah Palin’s forthcoming book “America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag” from its blog.
The injunction prohibits Gawker from “continuing to distribute, publish or otherwise transmit pages from the book” pending a hearing on Nov. 30.
HarperCollins Publishers had sued Gawker after it published images on Nov. 17 from Palin’s book before its release next week. . . .

Read the rest. A source familiar with the case e-mails:

The judge found probable cause that Gawker violated copyright and ordered Gawker to pull the leaked pages and appear in court to defend themselves and explain why this wasn’t a violation of copyright and why the leaked pages shouldn’t be permanently removed. This temporary restraining order prevents Gawker from potentially further violating copyright by keeping the pages up until the court date. Date set for Nov. 30th. This is a huge victory for HarperCollins’ lawyers.

UPDATE II: Remember that when Palin complained via Twitter about Gawker’s unauthorized excerpts, Gawker’s Maureen O’Connor presumed to lecture the former Alaska governor about copyright law.

Hey, Maureen, how’s that workin’ out for ya, sweetheart?

UPDATE III: Palin has offered her own “sneak peek” at her new book on Facebook. And let me see if I can explain — for the benefit of Maureen O’Connor and anyone else who doesn’t get it — why the judge issued that injunction. Politico reports:

Gawker’s scoop, “Sarah Palin’s New Book: Leaked Excerpts” . . . included 14 images of partial pages from the book, scheduled for publication Tuesday. . . .
The disputed Gawker post began: “Well, look what popped up five days early: leaks from Sarah Palin’s forthcoming memoir/manifesto, America By Heart, in which the reality TV matriarch rants against ‘talent deprived’ reality TV stars, lauds daughter Bristol’s chastity, and celebrates not aborting Trig. . . . The book is currently in distribution centers, awaiting its official release on Tuesday. We got our hands on some of the pages . . . Here’s an annotated guide to our favorite parts, featuring rants against the media and new material about Bristol and Levi.”

Your first clue: “14 images of partial pages.” To quote or paraphrase a book — even without authorization, five days prior to the book’s release date — yeah, you might get away with that. But publishing page-scans online? See you in court, buddy.

Something else: In any fair-use situation — which is what we’re talking about here — it’s important to think about your potential liability and who you might be going up against if you should have to defend yourself in court. 

It’s one thing if you’re running some piddling little personal blog and you’re pushing the limits of “fair use” against some low-rent outfit with a minor book or article by an obscure author.

It’s another thing altogether when you’re running a major commercial Web site and you’re going up against a gigantic company like Harper Collins that has invested a  million bucks in a big-name author for an expected bestseller they’re counting on to make 2010 a profitable year for them.

This is about incentives, you see. Palin’s publisher has a huge interest in protecting this product — not to mention the consideration of keeping their author happy — and Harper Collins can afford the legal costs of pushing a court case a lot more than Gawker Media LLC can.

Even if Gawker could ultimately win the case, Harper Collins could make it a very expensive victory — and any Web site editor in the future who thinks it would be cute to attempt similar shenanigans will have to keep that in mind.

Now a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE IV: “Did Gawker read those fair use links they suggested Sarah Palin read?”

UPDATE V: Welcome, Instapundit readers! I asked Professor Reynolds if he ever considered becoming a federal judge. He said, “Bah. Federal judge from law professor? Why take a demotion?”

Yeah, but what about the cocaine and lap dances?

Convicted Felon Stripper Gives Lap Dance, Gets Cocaine From Federal Judge

You can’t make this stuff up:

A veteran federal judge who was arrested on charges that he bought and used drugs with a stripper pleaded guilty Friday to two-drug related charges, including a felony count of giving her cocaine even though he knew she was a convicted felon.
U.S. Senior Judge Jack T. Camp pleaded guilty to the felony charge of aiding and abetting a felon’s possession of cocaine when he bought drugs for the stripper, who was secretly cooperating with authorities. He also pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors: possession of illegal drugs and illegally giving the stripper his government-issued laptop.
Judge Camp, 67, faces up to four years in federal prison when he is sentenced March 4 . . .
Judge Camp’s relationship with the dancer . . . appears to have begun earlier this year when he received a lap dance from her — along with her phone number — at an Atlanta strip club, according to the affidavit.
Authorities say when they met the next day, he paid her to have sex with him and the two used cocaine together. Over the next few months, the two used cocaine and other drugs together at strip clubs and other places, and the judge would pay $40 to $50 to join her in getting high, according to the documents.
The relationship grew closer over the months. Prosecutors say the judge startled the stripper by following her to a suburban Atlanta house where she was buying drugs one day in June. She told authorities that he brought a semiautomatic handgun with him in case she needed protection, the affidavit said.

(Via Clarion Advisory.) As a general rule, any time you see the phrase “lap dance” in close promiximity to the phrase “federal judge,” don’t expect that story to have a happy ending.

May I should rephrase that . . .

Da Tech Guy on Da Radio 5 p.m. ET

During this year’s campaign in Massachusetts, the Blogfather of the Axis of Fedora began making occasional appearances on WCRN-AM 830, a 50,000-watt news/talk powerhouse in Worcester. After talking to the station management, Pete realized that a weekend show was a feasible proposition, hustled up advertisers to support it and will debut his own show today at 5 p.m. ET. (Regular time for the show will be 9 p.m., but he’s on the air early today because the 9 p.m. slot got pre-empted by UMass basketball.)

Pete has been phenomenally successful in the past year. He’s traveled to CPAC, ridden the Tea Party Express, went to Georgia to cover Liz Carter, made it to BlogCon to cover the 9/12 rally, and went out on the campaign trail with me to cover Ann Marie Buerkle in NY-25 and Tom Marino in PA-10. He writes a regular column for the Examiner and now has his own talk radio show.

All of this phenomenal success, BTW, started just 10 months ago, in January, when I spent a week crashing on Pete’s sofa while covering the Scott Brown campaign (see my “Breakfast in Fitchburg” post for a good wrap-up of that trip). During that week in January, Pete demonstrated one basic aptitude necessary to success as a reporter: A willingness to ask questions to complete strangers. (In the photo above, you see Pete at a Tea Party rally during the Brown campaign interviewing Vietnam vet Randy May, whom I also interviewed.)

Over the years, I worked with a lot of newspaper interns — college kids who thought they wanted to be journalists — and saw how difficult it was for some people to overcome ordinary self-consciousness. It requires a real effort to get past that, to be aggressive, to call up people on the phone or walk up to them in person and start asking questions.

Pete’s got that exceptional quality in trumps. And he’s also got a great love for Ordinary Americans. It’s almost embarrassing at times to go to a restaurant or store with Pete, because he’ll just start interviewing a sales clerk or a waiter — “Would you mind if I ask you a few questions?” — with a real interest in their answers. The stories he gets that way are often amazing: While we were in Newton, Mass., to cover the Sean Bielat campaign, Pete started interviewing the waitress who served us breakfast — and it turns out she’s an immigrant from Haiti, who admired Ronald Reagan and did not vote for Obama.

Pete’s got the kind of optimistic can-do attitude that can accomplish miracles, and I think his radio show is going to be a smashing success. Please tune in at 5 p.m. You can listen on line and check in on Pete’s Tweets during the show.

UPDATE: Hey, that was fun! What’s amazing is to hear about stories like this state legislative election in Massachusetts:

 Republican Peter J. Durant maintained the slimmest of margins — one vote — and declared victory over state Rep. Geraldo Alicea in the 6th Worcester District race yesterday afternoon, based on the last of five recounts held this week.

Lots of shenanigans in that recount that haven’t made the MSM. And, at the end of the show, I was surprised to learn that people in Massachusetts hadn’t heard about the Logan Airport TSA agent accused of raping a 14-year-girl.