text:
International Adoption or Child Trafficking?
Between 1998 and 2008, nearly 30,000 Guatemalan-born children (mostly infants and toddlers) were adopted by U.S. parents. In some years, that meant that an astonishing 1 out of 100 children born in Guatemala was adopted by an American family. For most of that time, everyone but the prospective adoptive parents knew—or in some cases actively chose to "unknow"—that the country's international adoption system was a cesspool of corruption and crime, and motivated by money. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and news organizations reported in detail, repeatedly, that the country's babies were systematically being bought, coerced, or even kidnapped away from families that wanted to raise them. But because healthy babies and toddlers kept on coming at a regular pace that kept up with demand in America, and because powerful Guatemalans were getting enormously rich off the baby trade, the system did not shut down until January 1, 2008.
Finding Fernanda is a true-crime page-turner about two mothers—Betsy Emanuel, an American, and Mildred Alvarado, a Guatemalan—accidentally united by a horrible adoption kidnapping. First-time author Erin Siegal uses the moving story to deliver investigative reportage at its finest, examining in tremendous detail exactly what happened to Betsy, to Mildred, and to the daughter that both of them lost. In doing so, Siegal writes the definitive book on the Guatemalan international adoption system's endemic difficulties. In documenting exactly how Mildred Alvarado's two youngest children were stolen, and by tracing Alvarado's desperate search to regain them, Siegal exposes how Guatemalan crime rings and official corruption enabled children to cross borders and change identities without their families' permission. And by showing how hard it was for Betsy Emanuel to find out what went wrong when she adopted Alvarado's children, and how impossible it was for Florida to shut down Emanuel's U.S. adoption agency, Celebrating Children—notorious for its involvement in suspect adoptions, and which Siegal definitively links to the Alvarado kidnapping—Siegal reveals the tremendous gaps in U.S. laws and regulations on international adoption.
Full disclosure: In 2009, soon after I published an article about troubling international adoptions, "The Lie We Love," in Foreign Policy, Siegal called me to discuss her work. I was impressed by her thoroughness and courage for reporting this story from one of the most dangerous countries in the Western Hemisphere. Every time we talked, Erin was chasing down some detail or character; as far as I could tell, she read every document and talked with every source or expert even remotely connected to her project. Deeply struck by her indefatigable reporting and ambition, we brought her on as an unpaid fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, where I was then associate director (and remain a senior fellow). I knew from listening to her that she would get the facts right. But since I never read her writing, I wondered whether Siegal could tell a story as well as she could unearth it.
Siegal can indeed tell a story, powerfully so. Finding Fernanda is an astonishing book, essential reading for anyone interested in Guatemala or in the ways international adoption can go wrong. She delivers clear, unsentimental, moving portraits of her real-life "characters." In reporting on a July 1999 U.N. Special Rapporteur's investigation of the Guatemalan adoption system, she explains that the Rapporteur found that:
… a single Guatemalan woman had successfully given up thirty-three children for adoption over the course of three years. They were all supposed to have been her own biological children. No one caught the error because the woman had relinquished two children per month, the legal limit. Since Guatemalan authorities usually didn't save documentation on children who left the country in adoption … all thirty-three "orphans" had been successfully adopted into the United States.
Siegal exposes the many different systems used to separate women from their children, such as the social workers, doctors, nurses, midwives, and employers who insisted that poor young women relinquish their babies to pay a debt or who told young women that their children had died at birth. Her thoroughness makes it hard to refute when she writes, for instance, that "ultimately, any child could be declared an orphan if strategic bribes reached the correct hands, according to Guatemalan government authorities, adoption lawyers, and private investigators."
What's especially damning is how much the U.S. knew about the Guatemalan baby trade. Using documents that she received under the Freedom of Information Act (after years of effort), Siegal reveals that as far back as 1995, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala knew that birth mothers' lives were threatened if they tried to reclaim their children. She quotes cables in which Embassy officials worry that they were becoming
tacit accomplices by ignoring what is often right in front of us…. Are we not morally (if not legally) obligated to prevent what is otherwise clearly reprehensible as well as criminal under any penal code—kidnapping, the illegal separation of biological parents from their children?
A decade later, little has changed. Siegal paraphrases and then quotes a 2008 U.S. Embassy memo:
For the whole country, just five police officers and one police vehicle were allocated to investigating human trafficking…. 'The overall culture of impunity and violence and fear of reprisal discouraged victims and witnesses from testifying and filing legal action."
If I could wish for one change in the book, it might be a little more perspective. In her steady "just the facts, ma'am" narrative, Siegal rarely pulls back to offer her interpretation of what it all means, leaving the accumulation of facts to speak for themselves. That's pure investigative reporting. However, at times I wished for some explanatory journalism as well. While her portrait of the Guatemalan adoption system is appropriately damning—I honestly can't imagine how it would be refuted and am curious about how it's being received by the community of Americans who have adopted from Guatemala—she doesn't offer any sense of where Guatemala fits into the larger and more varied picture of international adoption. Or rather, if I read her right, she seems to think that Guatemala represents most other systems as well. I don't believe that's true.
In my own reporting on the subject, I found other countries whose international adoption systems were troubling, but none as rotten as Guatemala's over such a long period of time. In the past decade, perhaps only Cambodia's and Vietnam's came close. When Siegal points out that the U.S. adoption agency that she has damningly linked to Mildred Alvarado's stolen daughters, Celebrate Children, is now working in Ethiopia, she seems to imply that adoptions from Ethiopia will inevitably become as corrupt as Guatemala's were. Again, I'm not sure that's true. There have been some serious and apparently widespread lapses in Ethiopia, but I believe the insider sources who tell me that there are genuine efforts under way now to clean things up. And adoption systems in other countries—Eastern European countries, say—have quite different pitfalls and strengths.
But these are small quibbles with an important and exciting book and author. Siegal gives a clear picture of a putatively humanitarian system when it is deeply distorted. I hope Finding Fernanda gets the attention it deserves. And I cannot wait to see what Siegal tackles next.
Below: Maria Fernando Alvarado's profile when Celebrate Children offered her for adoption. Photo by Erin Siegal.
Fri, 2012-01-06 12:41
As an adoptive parent from Guatemala who also advocates for ethical adoption, my reaction is that I wish that reporters, yourself included, would not paint everything with such a sweeping brush. First, if "everyone knew", why did Ms. Siegal have to file a FOIA to get the documents? Adoptions closed down in Guatemala for a time in 2003. When the re-opened, many, including adoptive parents, believed that the problems had been fixed. Adoptive parents like ourselves submitted literally hundreds of pages of documents to both the US government (Dept of State/Dept of Homeland Security/CIS) and the Guatemalan government,. The process took months, sometimes years. We placed our faith in the governments who administered this process and the agencies that we worked with (all state licensed and certified to do international adoptions). Shame on them, not on us. We now know the US government knew a lot more then they disclosed (hence the need for the FOIA). So did many agencies. And that is somehow the fault of the adoptive parents?
As for the media and other reports warning of fraud, it was never clear (I would argue even now) how extensive the fraud was. Critics described cases of kidnapping (of which there are in fact very few documented instances) in the same breath as cases of married birth mothers (a child was not eligible for adoption if the parents are married, even if both parents want to relinquish) as if both were equal instances of fraud. If an adoptive parent chose a reputable agency , submitted all the paperwork, had it all approved by two governments, it was very easy to assume that some fraud might be happening, but that one's own case was clean. There is now a growing community of adoptive families who have found and have ongoing contact with their children's birthmothers. The vast majority of those have verified that their cases were legitimate. So, however widespread the fraud, it was not universal.
All of this is not to deny that corruption existed. It clearly did. It is simply a plea for understanding from the adoptive parents' perspectives. I get very tired of us being painted as a group of greedy, evil, intentionally self-deluding idiots. That simply isn't true, for the majority.
Fri, 2012-01-06 16:33
SB, i can appreciate why you are a bit defensive about this issue, but this article makes no accusations about the US families who adopted these children. The very first paragraph says... 'For most of that time, everyone but the prospective adoptive parents knew—"
Thu, 2012-01-26 00:56
Two Sides to Every Story. I appreciate this article discussing the account of Finding Fernanda. However, I would like to note that there is more to the issue that needs to be discussed prior to allowing the audience to make the assumption, likely derived from this type of discussion, that the Guatemalan adoption system is one of trite and corruption. Firstly, as an international attorney with over four-years on the ground experience in Guatemala working with the issue of human trafficking, I can say that nothing is ever as it seems in Guatemala due to the lack of governance, holes in the legal system, biased media, and intense pressures (financial) from international organizations and governments with their own agendas. There is no question that illegal adoptions have occurred and still do within Guatemala with all the treachery discussed---disception, drugs, kidnapping, etc. But there is another side that the International Arena doesn't talk about; I like to consider the "underground railroad" of adoptions in Guatemala. This is a similarly common situation where women having 7+ children beg attorneys (in Guatemala you have to be an attorney to be a notary) to take the child to a better place (without the knowledge of their husband or family due to the major domestic violence/social pressure issues involved) or women who leave the babies in public bathrooms, street corners, etc....in turn requiring these "corrupt officials" to make a choice of whether to leave the children in an orphanage in Guatemala (from 1st hand experience I can assure you they are worse than jail!) or falsify documents to help the children have a better life. This issue is never discussed and there are many attorneys that were put in this position who are now being prosecuted by CICIG, without DNA proof that the child they put up for adoption and the parent arguing that the child is actually theirs, and sentenced to jail for 16+ years. Now as we stated above, there are really corrupt officials that do deserve to face justice, however, the injustice prosecutions that are ruining the lives of those who tried to help these mothers is truly unjust and should not be given the blanketed label without each individual story being told and verified in the court of law.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
Camaro Z/28. This was the car that essentially turned on an entire generation of drag racers to the thrill of road racing. Conceived in Detroit and dedicated to the proposition that all Mustangs must be defeated, the Z/28 gave Chevrolet the Sports Car Club of America's Trans-Am Manufacturers Championship in 1968 and 1969, and made a hero out of a young racer named Mark Donohue in the process.
While only 602 folks in 1967 had the insight to order one of these then-unknown homologation specials, the Z/28, with its high-revving 302 and excellent-for-the-day handling, made believers out of many. Sales exploded to 7,199 for '68 and 20,302 for '69.
The car you see here, an original '69 RS Z/28, was turned into a Trans-Am racer in 1972 by William Weick, and it's been a track terror ever since. According to its current owner, Dr. Richard Lind, the logbooks tell how Weick (an independent) raced it in A/Sedan from 1972-'74 at legendary tracks like Bryar, Watkins Glen, and Lime Rock Park. From 1978-'84, it was owned by Scott Quaile and saw action in SCCA GT-1 competition, then again in GT-1 from 1986-'88 with owner Michael Farrell.
It made the transition to Sportscar Vintage Racing Association (SVRA) Trans-Am in 1992 at the hands of George Von Gal. Lind, who retired from Delphi Automotive four years ago, and is currently an automotive safety engineering consultant, bought the car in 2001 and has been campaigning it in that class ever since.
To Richard, an old drag racer, all it took was a ride in his friend's Shelby GT350H on a road course to alter the path of his automotive passion. Richard had a '67 Camaro and a 502 crate engine that he was going to mate for quarter-mile blasts, but after experiencing high lateral g-forces at Willow Springs Raceway, he immediately decided to turn the '67 into a road racer. He attended a number of high-performance driving schools, including Skip Barber and the Bondurant School (three times) and has never looked back.
While the aftermarket builds thousands of parts to help your Camaro handle like a modern sports car, none of them can be found on this F-body. They're simply not legal for SVRA competition. The control arms are from 40 years ago, the brakes off a '72 Corvette Stingray. Only power steering is there to help the driver with the "muscling."
"When they called these things muscle cars, they meant it," Richard says. "They were meant to go straight. When you go into a corner, you really have to muscle it to get it to turn."
It's one thing to horse one of these old beasts around a turn when you're by yourself or on an autocross course; now imagine what it's like at speed with two other cars in the same corner. Definitely gets the heart pumping.
The Z/28 was found in 2001 with the help of some friends in the SVRA. Richard looked at one vintage Camaro racecar in Knoxville, Tennessee, which turned out to be more of a show car, thus eliminating it from consideration. Then Richard went to Montgomery, Alabama, where Von Gal had this one for sale—he bought it immediately. Richard's new Z needed a full refurbishing to make it ready for the rigors of the track again. He sent it to Collector Motorsports in Waukee, Iowa, where Stu Black transformed it with a new engine, four-speed trans, rearend, driveshaft, front and rear suspensions, fuel cell—you name it. The payoff is it's been a competitive SVRA Group 6 and HSR Group 5 car ever since.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Published on Brock University (http://brocku.ca)
Brock Innovation is an office within the University, managing research and innovation relationships between members of the University and the commercial world. We help to bring intellectual property [2] to market, put in place partnerships for research [3], assist professors and students with new ventures [4], and provide academic extension services [5] and consultancy [6].
In Q4 2014, we have over 170 active projects involving 75 of our professors, 10 student ventures, 10 research ventures, 75 external companies and 40 business mentors.
Within Brock, we work closely with other groups working with companies, including the Co-op Programs office, Advancement officers, Career services, Government Relations and the BioLinc incubator.
To find out more:
For Researchers [7]
For Companies [8]
For Alumni and Entrepreneurs [9]
For Students [10]
News! [11]
Contact us [13]


text:
Republicans are playing Constitutional hardball again. It's a dangerous game.
The GOP may attempt to rig the Electoral College by changing the electoral vote allocation in GOP-controlled states which voted for Barack Obama. The idea would be to shift from the normal winner-take-all plan to something that would split the votes in those states. Ideally, from the Republican point of view, every Republican state would be winner-take-all while all Democratic states would be split more or less evenly, making it almost impossible for a Democrat to win the White House. All of that, as obviously undemocratic as it is, would be perfectly Constitutional; the Constitution leaves every state in charge of how to choose its electors.
The idea should be not be seen as a stand-alone. Instead, it's best thought of as one of a set of schemes Republicans have advanced over the last 20 years. It includes the establishment of the 60-vote Senate; mid-decade redistricting in Texas after Republicans took control of the legislature there; the "new nullification" of Republicans using the filibuster to prevent anyone at all from getting confirmed for some executive branch posts in an effort to prevent duly passed laws from getting carried out; recall elections to remove officials without any particular cause; and the impeachment of Bill Clinton for actions which had not traditionally been thought to fall into the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Oh, and one more, one that is closely tied to the latest plan: the threat, during the 2000 presidential recount fight, that the Florida legislature would simply toss the entire election out and pick the electors themselves.
What all these efforts have in common is that they are all perfectly legal, and yet they all violate the norms of how American politics had been practiced for decades or even for centuries. All of them exploit some loophole in the law or the Constitution to give Republicans some immediate advantage in the basic ground rules of how political issues are contested.
The legal analysis Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School calls such efforts "Constitutional Hardball," and I think that's a good name for them.
The question is how corrosive they are, and I think the answer is: very.
Much of the American political system actually runs on norms, not rules. It may seem strange to people—especially after 20 years of Republican-led Constitutional hardball—but that arrangement actually can work very nicely. Both parties, and beyond them most other politically active citizens, simply work within the de facto rules of the game and work for the best results under those rules.
The problem is that once a party in such a system starts looking for areas to exploit in the gap between written law and the way the law is practiced, they may find all sorts of small, temporary edges. And there's really no particular reason for them to stop once it starts. In each case, the case for moving ahead is the same: why not use the rules to your advantage? For the other party, the incentive to fight fire with fire is overwhelming. Not only is sticking to outdated norms while your opponents don't a sure recipe for losing, but in fact the very norm of following norms rapidly disappears and should be replaced by loophole-exploiting by everyone.
There's a classic collective action problem here: everyone is far better off under a system in which the basic rules of the game are agreed to and respected than under a system in which the rules are constantly altered, but at any particular point in time anyone who figures out a gap to take advantage of can be better off.
More seriously, democracy itself is threatened by Constitutional hardball. Rapid rules changes are bad for democracy. Why? Because coalition building and complex bargaining—both of which are absolutely essential for large-policy democracy—only do that work when they are necessary. When the rules are up for grabs, those processes can become unnecessary—or at least it may appear that party hands can shortcut the process by bending the rules in favor of their own faction. The classic case of this was the reforms of the Democratic presidential nomination process after 1968, which produced factional nominees in 1972 and 1976 before everyone figured out the rules and candidates were once again forced to form coalitions in order to win.
Of course, sometimes rules change is necessary. Surely, for example, switching to direct election of senators or to an open presidential nomination process or to a system which destroyed the domination of the House of Representatives by a handful of committee chairs who happened to live in safe districts were all excellent ideas, even if they created short-term problems. The thing about Constitutional hardball, however, is that rules change happens not in order to find a better system—not even a little bit—but purely to find and exploit temporary advantages, no matter what happens after that.
Fortunately, it's unlikely that Republicans will actually go ahead with their Electoral College rigging plan, because the incentives for state legislators who would have to vote for the plan most likely run counter to those of the national party. Even the suggestion of such Electoral College-tampering, however, further undermines the "norm of following norms" that helps keep a democracy polity stable. And unfortunately, no solution appears to be available.
The best hope is that the present generation of Republicans will maybe be replaced by a group who have a bit more restraint; after all, they do call themselves conservatives. But that's probably just wishful thinking; the most likely outcome is a constant back-and-forth exploitation of the rules, with winners codifying their current positions in ever-more-detailed rules of the game that may or may not make any sense whatsoever beyond the short-term advantage for which they were adopted. Now, of course, plenty of our most cherished institutional arrangements (and also, you know, the United States Senate) have been influenced, at least in part, by the self-interest of the time. That's politics. But Constitutional hardball is a step beyond that, and it's deeply threatening to democracy.
Mon, 2013-01-07 19:01
It would not have been constitutional during the 2000 presidential recount fight, for the Florida legislature to simply toss the entire election out and pick the electors themselves.
Federal law (section 1 of Title 3 of the United States Code) requires presidential electors to be appointed on one specific day in every four-year period namely, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (Election Day).
"The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.".
Any attempt to appoint presidential electors after the people vote in November would be politically preposterous in the real world because it would not be "perfectly constitutionally legal.
Any attempt to appoint presidential electors after the people vote in November would be unconstitutional on its face because the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish the day for appointing presidential electors and existing federal law allows presidential electors to be appointed on only one specific day in each four-year period (namely, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November).
No state may appoint its presidential electors after "the results of an election become known.".
If a state legislature decides that it is going to appoint presidential electors itself, it must make the appointments on the specific single day established by Congress (the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November). In particular, a state legislature cannot appoint presidential electors after Election Day (e.g., after seeing the election results in its own state or other states).
Mon, 2013-01-07 19:06
Obvious partisan machinations like the newest proposals should add support for the National Popular Vote movement. If the party in control in each state is tempted every 2, 4, or 10 years (post-census) to consider rewriting election laws and redistrict with an eye to the likely politically beneficial effects for their party in the next presidential election, then the National Popular Vote system, in which all voters across the country are guaranteed to be politically relevant and treated equally, looks better and better.
The National Popular Vote bill would change current state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California's population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
When and where voters matter, then so are the issues they care about most.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions with 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
You may also like:
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
New Voters, New Values
Barack Obama would have lost the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections had a new set of voters not joined the American electorate—voters who brought with them a range of values that differed sharply from those of more traditional voters. These changing values—on such issues as personal social responsibility, the role of government, sexual mores, gender roles, and America's place in the world—underpin the decisions these voters made on Election Day and provide a basis for understanding Obama's victory. They also signify profound changes to American politics and pose elemental challenges to both the Republican and Democratic parties in coming years.
As the values of the new American electorate (Latinos, women, the young, the unmarried) clash with those of the old (particularly white married men over 35), the country could see a shift not only in voting patterns but also in public policy. Consider these different groups' answers when asked if they agreed or disagreed with a question that ascertained their views toward nationalism.
The world that young people, minorities, women, and the unmarried experience has produced sets of values on economic and social issues that vary greatly from those of older white men in particular. The increased influence of these newer groups is not a temporary electoral condition, contingent on a charismatic African American candidate. These Americans who turned out in force for Obama are an increasingly powerful presence in the U.S. electorate—and, like older white married men, they are bringing their values with them to the polls.
Click here for a note on methodology and here for definitions of key terms.
Older White Men
White married men over the age of 35 stand out among Americans on many measures—to begin, by their support for traditional social hierarchies and institutions. They score low on the value "Flexible Definition of the Family." Asked to agree or disagree that "getting married and having children is the only real definition of a family," about half (49 percent) of these men agree, compared to 37 percent of the rest of the population. Thirty-seven percent of older white married men also agree that "society should regard two people of the same sex who live together as being the same as a married couple"; among other Americans, 52 percent do.
Closely linked to this belief in traditional family is a belief that the family should be a seat of patriarchal authority: Forty-four percent of older white married men agree with the statement "The father of the family must be master in his own house." Among other Americans, support for this statement is 39 percent.
When it comes to the appropriate size and role of government, an issue that animated much of the recent election campaign, older white married men differ from their compatriots substantially. They are about half as likely (18 percent) as other Americans (39 percent) to agree that "it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country's social problems." This disinclination toward governmental responsibility and power is bolstered both by their somewhat weaker sense of responsibility for the fates of people less fortunate than themselves and a slightly stronger faith in the value "American Dream" (the belief that "it is possible for myself and/or my children to 'make it'")—a statement that 76 percent of older white married men support, compared to 69 percent of other Americans.
Similarly, 55 percent of this group endorses the idea that people basically get what they deserve ("Just Deserts"), while 49 percent of other Americans agree. Notably, although we might expect that economic winners would be more likely to see the system as fair, there is in fact no clear pattern by income on either American Dream or Just Deserts. Education makes a difference on the latter value, however: People with higher levels of education are markedly less likely to believe that people basically get what they deserve. As to America's place in the world, older white married men empathize less than other Americans with people suffering in foreign nations, and just 23 percent say they often or occasionally feel they are "more a citizen of the world than of my country," while 51 percent of other Americans say that they feel a sense of global citizenship.
Under 30s
People under the age of 30 made up 19 percent of the electorate in November. Although Obama lost ground with young voters—60 percent of them voted for him in 2012 as compared to 66 percent in 2008—he nevertheless won them by a clear margin.
Young Americans are more at ease with a multicultural society and relatively skeptical of authority and the trappings of tradition (including religion) than older voters. For example, 75 percent of Americans under 30 agree that "I would be happy if someone in my family married someone of a different race," compared to 57 percent of other Americans. Six in ten Americans under 30 agree that "the spiritual side of my life is not a single belief system; I draw on several faiths and traditions." Forty-seven percent of Americans over 30 say the same.
But it may be young people's attitudes toward government that are most notable, and not just because this election cycle featured so much discussion of the appropriate size and role of government. Americans under 30 are twice as likely (54 percent) as those 30 and over (27 percent) to agree that "it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country's social problems" (see chart below left).
This interest in an active government emerges against the backdrop of serious economic insecurity for students and young workers. Youth unemployment has been a major feature of the post-2008 recession and recovery. Although young people are not especially pessimistic about their financial outlook, they express feelings of vulnerability and insecurity that reflect something deeper than uncertainty about temporary joblessness. Americans under 30 score low on the value "Personal Control," which gauges a sense of personal efficacy in the face of circumstances. For instance, 51 percent of Americans under the age of 30 (compared to 38 percent of older people) agree with the statement "No matter what I do, I have a lot of trouble changing the course of my life." Young people also score higher on the value "Anomie--Aimlessness"; they are more likely to believe they have scant value as individuals in society and to feel their life has little meaning.
Although bread-and-butter issues matter to the young, their underlying desire may be for a sense of direction and empowerment, the mingling of personal meaning and collective purpose. An every-man-for-himself orientation to the economy does not resonate as strongly with this group as a government that seeks to support young people's economic participation and harness young adults' energies for a stronger America.
In the 2012 elections, 55 percent of women voters cast their ballot for President Obama. That gender gap wasn't simply a reaction to Republican candidates' musings about "legitimate rape" and the "gift of God" bestowed as a consequence of rape.
On social issues, women's values do indeed differ from those of men in a number of ways. Women tend to be more at ease with diverse family models, more supportive of gender equality, and more comfortable with flexible gender roles (men and women taking on nontraditional responsibilities and even dressing and behaving in nontraditional ways).
The most interesting difference between women and men, however, is their values divergence on economic issues. In the past couple of years, women have been hit harder than men by job losses, particularly in the public sector. Job loss tends to be as disastrous for women as it is for men; the time when women were second earners whose incomes padded out the family finances is ancient history. Other survey work finds that 41 percent of American women said they were the primary breadwinners for their family at some point in the preceding four years. Women, though, still earn only 77 cents for every man's dollar. These different life circumstances are reflected in the values women and men hold.
Women and men differ in their basic sense of economic fairness. Women score lower on the value Just Deserts; they are less likely (46 percent) than men (55 percent), for instance, to agree that "I feel that people get what they deserve." They are also less certain about the value American Dream, expressing slightly less confidence that they or their children can "make it." Perhaps because women have less confidence that people's outcomes in life neatly match their efforts, they also score higher on the value "Social Responsibility." Forty-two percent of women, as compared to 27 percent of men, strongly agree that "I have a personal responsibility to help those worse off than myself."
Women's higher scores on the value "Introspection and Empathy" may also have some power to explain their differences from men. Four in ten women, as compared to 29 percent of men, agree strongly that "I like to put myself in another person's shoes and try to imagine how I would have felt in his/her place." Whereas men's values profile indicates a tendency to favor clear rules and structures, women's values inscribe greater flexibility.
Women are more likely than men to endorse social safety nets and desire a stronger role for the government, which they see as a partner in achieving economic security, education, and a better future. Men are more likely to see government as a meddlesome hindrance than a supportive partner. For example, a Lake Research Partners survey found that 62 percent of women compared to 49 percent of men say the statement "It's time for government to take a larger and stronger role in making the economy work for the average American" is closer to their own view than the statement "Turning to big government to solve our economic problems will do more harm than good."
The Unmarried
Today, 51 percent of adult Americans are married. In 1960, the proportion was 72 percent. About nine in ten Americans will marry at some point in their lives. Because young people are marrying later in life and divorce is more common, however, a larger proportion of today's voting-age population arrives at the polls unmarried. This year, unmarried women made up 23 percent of the electorate (up from 21 percent in 2008), and two-thirds of them voted for Obama.
The divergence on sexual mores between single voters (especially the never-married, as distinct from the divorced and widowed) and the married voters who largely supported Mitt Romney represented a key value divide in this election. Whereas 34 percent of married Americans strongly disagree, for instance, that premarital sex increases the chances of a successful marriage, just 20 percent of unmarried Americans feel the same way.
Single, separated, and divorced Americans—both men and women—are also more flexible about what constitutes a marriage and a family. So are married women. It is married men who are the outliers on these issues, expressing by far the strongest attachment not only to traditional marriage and family but to a patriarchal model of family. Forty-nine percent of married men agree that "the father of the family must be master in his own house," compared to 31 percent of unmarried women—and 24 percent of married women.
It is not just values surrounding gender and sexuality that drives differences between unmarried and married voters but also feelings about their economic vulnerability. Thirty-nine percent of singles say they are less financially secure this year than last (compared to 34 percent of married Americans); the separated and divorced are especially likely to feel worse off. Although singles overall are about as likely as married people to feel their financial circumstances will worsen in the future, the widowed, separated, and divorced are more pessimistic than average.
Blacks, Latinos, and Immigrants
Race and racism made major differences in voting behavior in both the 2008 and the 2012 elections. Not surprising, we find substantial differences between whites and nonwhites and between immigrants and the American-born on a number of dimensions related to racism, immigration, and diversity.
African Americans stand out in believing that racism remains a significant feature of American life. Asked to agree or disagree that "racism in the United States is by and large a thing of the past," most African Americans (58 percent) disagree strongly, as compared to 34 percent of whites and 32 percent of Latinos.
African Americans may be more likely than whites to expect government to take a leadership role in tackling the racism they see as a persistent part of American life: About half (51 percent) of this group agrees that "it should be primarily government, not the private sector, that is concerned with solving the country's social problems." Latinos are roughly in line with African Americans, while only three in ten white Americans agree. This, of course, reflects a variety of attitudes not just on racism but also on the role of government and the state of the economy.
On the question of multiculturalism, opinions vary about the extent to which immigrants should maintain their heritage languages and cultures or "blend in" to an American mainstream. Here, too, older white married men are the outliers: Sixty-seven percent agree that "immigrants of different races and ethnic groups should set aside their cultural backgrounds and try to blend into the American culture," compared to just 47 percent of other Americans.
Navigating the New Values Landscape
The values cleavages between traditional voters and the emerging constituencies are profound. The different values that women, minorities, the young, and the unmarried bring to their voting decisions are the product of a set of life experiences unlike the experiences of the old electorate. These groups pose different demands on government and political leaders that could point to new directions in public policy.
But while the values shifts we have traced here are profound, their short-term impact on politics is by no means guaranteed. A lot depends on turnout in the next election cycle. In 2012, voters over the age of 50 made up 44 percent of the electorate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, they cast 53 percent of the ballots. The more youthful composition of the 2012 electorate clearly benefited Democrats, but it is notable that Democrats' performance among older people was actually worse in 2012 than in the 2010 midterms. Democrats lost all over-50 segments in 2012, whereas in 2010 they conceded only senior citizens (not the 50-to-64 age group). Thus, 2014 could once again find Democrats on the defensive if turnout plummets among young, as well as minority and unmarried, voters.
Beyond 2014, both major parties face challenges in adapting to the evolving social-values landscape. The challenge for Republicans is greater, as some of the values around which they have built their party's base are precisely those that alienate the emerging electorate. Yet Democrats and progressive leaders have work to do as well. While they won this year's election, they did so with a diverse, multifaceted coalition whose values and priorities may affront some of their older and white blue-collar voters.
Nor have the Democrats transformed politics or public policy in a way that connects more deeply with the emerging values of the country or even guarantees that their supporters will continue to participate in the political process. Some of the same values that so distinctly differentiate the new electorate from the old also pose challenges to their political engagement. Younger generations' higher scores on the value of Anomie-Aimlessness and their feeling that they have little control over their future could impede their developing the lifelong habit of voting, particularly in non-presidential elections.
The new electorate represents a great opportunity for progressives that is matched by an even bigger challenge of engaging these voters and speaking to their experiences, needs, and desires. Democrats and progressives will need to take a strong stand defending the safety-net programs that are important to their base of women, young voters, people of color, and unmarried voters. They must move aggressively on major immigration reform.
Most important, Democrats and progressives need to define a new economic agenda that promises opportunity, security, stability, and prosperity to their growing constituencies. The successful campaigns in 2012 lacked a comprehensive economic plan or perspective—but by voting in such high numbers, the new American electorate gave Democrats another chance to produce one. Progressives must now make sure that their voters' leap of faith is rewarded.
Brittany Stalsburg of Lake Research Partners and Amy Langstaff of Environics contributed to this article.
Since 1992, Environics Research Group, a partner on this article, has been tracking social values in the United States using a social-science meth- odology distinct from traditional polling. Environics understands values as the mental postures that structure our interpretation of the world and ourselves. Most of our values are formed early in life by our experiences and relationships. They evolve to some extent over the course of one's life, but values change at the societal level usually happens not within individuals but across generations.
Although our social-values surveys, like traditional polls, ask respondents specific questions, the basic unit of interpretation is not the question but the value. For instance, the value "Flexible Definition of the Family" is derived not only from a question on same-sex partnerships but also a question on common- law unions and another about whether only one "real" kind of family exists. In combination, these questions gauge an overall orientation to family struc- ture, not just an attitude on a specific question of minority rights. Whereas traditional polling excels at tracking public attitudes on the issues of the day, the social-values method seeks to track the evolution of a society's deeply held beliefs about such fundamental issues as family and authority, status and security, individualism and fulfillment. A further note: Our sample includes respondents age 15 and over, not just those who have reached voting age.
Mon, 2013-02-11 01:54
Not denying the importance of this breakdown for a second. But, on behalf of the older, often retired white men I canvassed here in western Mass on behalf Elizabeth Warren (Obama secondary): mostly, white Polish- and Irish- Italian- and Anglo- American men.
Such interesting and illuminating conversations, from the extensive to the "don't waste my time -- of course I'm voting Warren/Obama." (Sometimes a neatly coiffed working middle class wife was standing in the background, clearly running things.) These were skilled union men, ahead of the curve.
More troubling to me, the libertarian 30's and 40's men, often living alone (in situations where one suspects they'd been divorced, were resentful about child-custody issues -- I'm not without sympathy here, but.) Scott Brown their MAN.
But I like to remember those 65-year-old Polish or Irish or Italian or Anglo men: god love 'em (and their insistent wives). Credit where credit is due.
Mon, 2013-02-11 14:45
Mon, 2013-02-11 16:41
The problem that the Republican party is having and will continue to have is the use of the word "traditional". My family has been in this country for nearly two hundred years - first as slaves and then as free Americans. Nearly two centuries later, I am still not considered a traditional American. Until the GOP recognizes that their is no such thing as a traditional Americans, but only Americans, they will continue to lose support. Being black or young or gay or Muslim doesn't make someone less American. ic
Mon, 2013-02-11 18:34
There are plenty of black people who are "traditional Americans". It's about values and beliefs, not skin color or anything else. The Democrats are the ones playing race politics, and they are masters of it. They are relentless about it. They never let people forget about their "demographic characteristics" long enough to stop and think about themselves as individuals. Whenever their policies fail, and they start losing arguments, they start screaming RACE at the top of their lungs, until people stop talking about the fact that their policies fail and their ideas don't hold up under scrutiny.
Fri, 2013-02-15 12:31
The Democratic Party and the surveys taken fail to take into account independents and others who refuse for any reason to take part in surveys. It, therefore, follows that the surveys may not be as accurate as is put forth. Fact, my small street of twenty households will automatically hang up the phone whenever a survey, pollster or any other organization calls or comes to our doors for polling or survey purposes.
Mon, 2013-02-11 18:15
This kind of story gets published at least once a week by one left wing publication or another. It's cut-and-paste boilerplate at this point, equal parts boosterism and propaganda.
This particular article gets low marks because the poll questions being used are idiotic, and the analysis focuses on issues where one set of voters takes a 75% position while the rest take a 68% position. Not exactly the huge divergence she's indicating.
The real numbers from 2012 (the exit polls) show something very clear. The divide in voting patterns based on race and ethnicity is infinitely more significant than age or sex. White women went for Mitt Romney by 14 points. White voters under 30 went for Romney by 7 points (after Obama won them by 10 points in 2008). Obama's support among non-white and Hispanic voters was so overwhelming that he clung to office despite losing 3.6 million votes from 2008.
The Republicans clearly have a problem, but so do the Democrats. Romney got less than 30% of votes cast by Hispanics. Considering that George W. Bush got 44% in 2004, the challenge is not insurmountable. But it is urgent.
Obama, on the other hand, only got 39% of white votes. Without the first black president on the ballot to spur minority turnout and loyalty, the Democrats could be in for serious trouble if that pattern continues. Lake knows that and acknowledges it subtly early in the article. But apparently left wing readers prefer to hear about rosy scenarios rather than possible landmines ahead for their beloved Democrats.
Mon, 2013-02-11 22:12
Exactly !!! This sort of propaganda has been thrown around for decades - just more so in the past 3-4 months than I can recall. In the 60's (right after JFK won) Catholics were going to be the reason that Democrats would dominate for decades, in the 70's, the youth vote that went for McGovern was going to lead the charge to a new majority (the Boomers who gave him the majority of their votes in 72 went solidly for Romney this year), yada, yada, yada.
Your comment on the silliness of the poll questions is on the mark - I am a Repubican old white man and I do not know anyone who believes they should be the "master" of their home - you have to assume that the people who said yes to that question were messing with the pollster.
While I agree that both parties cannot be nonchalant in their approach to the hispanic vote I see the long term direction of the political landscape as being within the bounds of decades of normal - the young will grow more conservative, new immigrants will assimilate to the mainstream and the parties will be on a perpetual pendulum swing basis (if slightly assymetrical).
Tue, 2013-02-12 00:11
The Democrats have one thing to offer: hate. Primarily hatred for white people, and hatred for people who make more money than you. After that they have hatred for men, and hatred for Christians. We'll see how long this party of hate can hold its grip on power while completely failing on the economy.
Mon, 2013-02-11 19:19
Tue, 2013-02-12 11:34
I think the reason the democratic party has not fully embraced the views of this emerging new coalition is due to the fact that a decade ago or so the party was all about the DLC view.
Clinton had a successful presidency with most of the country supporting him and he was a leader of the DLC movement. And most of the party was part of that by the time he left office.
The party had moved from new dealers to corporate party.
And they became gun shy from traditional democratic views and ideas. For the most part, they still are.
On top of it, Washington exists in a bubble. They are fed the mainstream media thinking, which in largely taken from the gop. A few years ago the media was in thrall with the tea party. And today, they still see compromise as democrats giving in and the republicans giving nothing.
Afterall, the media are the cheerleaders for austerity and never, ever bring up corporate welfare and giveaways to the rich as part of entitlements.
We are on the right track but, it will take constant pushing and prodding to make the democratic party embrace the change fully and reject the leftovers of the DLC control.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
Cal Guard soldiers heading to Afghanistan
A National Guard brigade headquartered in San Diego is mobilizing for what is anticipated to be the last major deployment to Afghanistan for California's citizen soldiers.
About 600 assigned to the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team are slated to leave this summer for a nine-month tour to Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces, where they will work in advisory teams with Afghan police and other national security forces.
The Cal Guard soldiers are deploying during what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described last week as the "last chapter" of a long and difficult struggle to prepare Afghanistan to govern itself and provide its own security.
About 66,000 American troops are deployed to Afghanistan, down from a wartime high of about 100,000. Most, if not all, U.S. and international forces are scheduled to withdraw by the end of 2014.
Decisions over the pace of the drawdown over the next two years are in flux. Also undecided is how many U.S. troops might remain after the combat mission ends.
Col. Mark Malanka, the brigade's commander, said the soldiers' deployment plan will likely change numerous times before they arrive in Afghanistan. The only thing certain — as the U.S. administration hashes out the details of how to wind down the war — is that they are going.
Malanka will serve as deputy commander of an Australian-run task force. His supporting troops pulled from battalions across California, as well as some from Utah and Washington, will spend more than a year away from home, including about four months of full-time predeployment training.
The timing makes this deployment feel pivotal, said Sgt. 1st Class Jessica Inigo, a 1996 Chula Vista High School graduate who serves with the brigade.
"Our president said we are going to be pulled out very soon. I feel I will be one of the last U.S. troops, at least in this war, who will be there and witness history in the making," Inigo said.
The California soldiers do not expect to do much, if any, patrolling, manning checkpoints or leading operations. At this stage of the war, Afghan national forces should handle those duties.
"We are teaching them to basically take over when we are gone," said Inigo, 34, a public affairs officer who previously served in Iraq, Kuwait and Kosovo, among other nations. "We are not just leaving them to fend for themselves."
The work-up for the deployment included several days of training last week at Camp San Luis Obispo, on Afghan culture, geography, history, tribes and languages. Extended stays at Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center in Mississippi and the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin will follow this spring.
About 20 percent of the Cal Guard brigade has served in Afghanistan before. The citizen soldiers tend to be a little older than their active-duty counterparts and bring a broader diversity of backgrounds and perspectives.
Malanka, 54, is a maintenance manager for the regional sewer district in Monterey. He commutes to his National Guard headquarters at the San Diego armory on Mesa College Drive. "We have sheriffs, police officers, school teachers. My sergeant major is a school principal for an Indian reservation. … We're not simply war-fighter focused."


text:
10:54 29 January 2013
In the cause of his art, photographer Todd Forsgren uses mist nets to briefly ensnare a variety of tropical South American birds before releasing them, unharmed. Here are some of his most interesting catches. Julia Sklar
Read more: "Netted Costa Rican birds pay small price for art"


text:
Navy Store-it Canvas Bin Collection
- Personalization
reg. price $16.50 – $45 special $16.50 – $41
- Overview
Keep your space organized with these sturdy and versatile bins. With room for books, desk supplies and other essentials, they hold everything in place and within easy reach.
- Cube: 10" square, 10" high
- Mini: 7" wide x 13" deep x 6" high
- Medium: 9.5" wide x 13.5" deep x 10.5" high
- Cotton canvas.
- Sturdy handles make for easy transport.
- Bins fold flat for storage when not in use.
- Sold individually or in sets of two.
- Dimensions + Care
- Wipe with a soft, dry cloth.
- Wipe with a soft, dry cloth.
- Shipping Info
- Please allow approximately 5-7 business days for delivery. Delivery estimate includes monogrammed and gift-wrapped items.
- Final Sale
Final-sale items, identified by a price ending in $0.99, cannot be returned. Once placed, your order for any final sale items cannot be canceled.
Set of Two Bins
Please Select Size:
reg. price $45 special $41
- Free Shipping
- New Colors


text:
All News
Showing 1 of 1 results
- Today
- Past 7 Days
- Past Month
- Past Year
- Specific Date Range
- Feature Story (1)
Sort By:
- Date
Are Gender Norms Changing? 4,000 Women and Men in 20 Countries Weigh In
In a village in Tanzania, for example, women are now making clay pots and growing vegetables to sell at market. The work is generating income, but within the community, it is viewed as an extension of... Show More +
Date: February 26, 2013
Type: Feature Story
Language: English


text:
Win the Ultimate Wedding Welcome Bag!
We've teamed up with the smarties at Guesterly for the Ultimate Wedding Welcome Bag Giveaway! It couldn't be easier to enter for this chance to win creative goodies you and your guests will love.
Enter here for your chance at this great gift bag, featuring yours truly and many others, such as: Vosges Haut-Chocolat, Pinch Provisions, MAPTOTE, Gracious Goodies, and Help Remedies!


text:
|Amount Per Serving
|% Daily Value
|L-Carnitine (as l-carnitine l-tartrate)
|500 mg
Added to My List as a guest*.
*Your guest list will be temporarily saved until you end this browser session.
ARO-Vitacost Black Series L-Carnitine -- 500 mg - 100 Capsules
Oops! Something went wrong and we were unable to process your request. Please try again.
|Amount Per Serving
|% Daily Value
|L-Carnitine (as l-carnitine l-tartrate)
|500 mg
Attack - Recover - Optimize
Quality ingredients. Real results.
Get ripped, without getting ripped off.
ARO L-Carnitine – 500 mg per capsule
What is ARO L-Carnitine?
Multi-functional ARO L-Carnitine is an amino acid supplement that targets muscle health and cardio health needs at the same time.* Naturally produced by the body and found abundantly in heart muscle and skeletal tissue, L-carnitine functions mainly as a shuttle for fatty acids, transporting them into mitochondria, where they're used for cellular energy production.*
In addition to supporting fatty acid metabolism, L-carnitine has been used to enhance exercise recovery.* It works to support oxygenation of the heart muscle and overall provides support for the cardiovascular system.*
Why choose ARO L-Carnitine?
About Vitacost
Vitacost nutritional products are manufactured to high standards of quality, efficacy and safety. Each Vitacost product meets or exceeds the standards and requirements set forth in the FDA's Code of Federal Regulation (21 CFR, 111) Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP).
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
As a dietary supplement, take 1 capsule daily or as directed by a healthcare professional.
Store in a cool, dry place.


text:
There are numerous mass transit options available for your trip to Miller Park. If you're planning to visit the Milwaukee area for the first time, we have suggestions for area attractions and local information below.
Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) riders can catch a Rt. 90 (Miller Park) bus on Wisconsin Avenue from the Downtown Transit Center to Miller Park for all home games, starting with the home opener.
Provided for all Brewers home games, Rt. 90 (Miller Park) buses operate every 30 minutes for two hours before game time. For the home opener, Monday April 1st, against the Colorado Rockies, and Marquee games with projected heavy attendance, buses will operate more frequently. Return trip bus service leaving Miller Park operates for a half-hour after the end of the game.
Rt. 90 (Miller Park) bus stops are located at the Downtown Transit Center and along Wisconsin Avenue from Jackson Street to 38th Street. Look for electronic destination signs that display "90 Let's Go Brewers!" Buses drop passengers off at the MCTS transit area on Yount Drive on the north side of Miller Park. On the return trip, buses leave the ball park from the MCTS transit area and serve all eastbound bus stops.
Brewers fans can also ride Rt. 10 (Humboldt-Wisconsin), Rt. 23 (Fond du Lac-National) or the MetroEXpress BlueLine (Fond du Lac-National) that stop within walking distance of Miller Park. Fares for Routes 10, 23, 90 and BlueLine are $2.25 for adults and $1.10 for children (6 -11) seniors (65 and over) and individuals with disabilities. Children under 6 ride free with an adult.
For more information passengers can call the 24-hour automated BusLine at 414-344-6711 or visit RideMCTS.com.
Many local hotels and bars offer area shuttle service to Miller Park. Check with your local establishment. Area shuttle services use the drop-off area near the ticket office/Home Plate gate accessible via Yount Drive - see below for a downloadable Shuttle Map.


text:
Are Gay Guys Checking You Out in the Locker Room?
NBA player Jason Collins, left, in 2009. Collins recently came out as gay in a Sports Illustrated op-ed, the first active player in a major-league sport to do so.
As the first active member of one of the major sports leagues to come out as gay, NBA player Jason Collins's announcement yesterday has generated praise from gay-rights supporters. Predictably, it has also prompted dire warnings about gays in the locker room from homophobes like the Family Research Council's Brian Fischer:
I will guarantee you ... if the ownership of whatever team is thinking about bringing him back, or thinking about trading for him, and they go to the players on that team and they say 'How do you feel about an out active homosexual being in the same locker room, sharing the same shower facilities with you?' they'll say no way. I don't want that. I do not want some guy, a teammate, eyeballing me in the shower.
This seems to be a concern primarily among men—women, for whatever reason, aren't half as scared of lesbians—but it's a common refrain among homophobes trying to stoke gay panic. The gay-shower scenario comes up whenever public discussion turns to gays in sports, and it was also a concern during the debate over "don't ask, don't tell," with some members of the military suggesting separate showering facilities for gay and straight soldiers. For those who don't fear gay people, it may seem a bit juvenile or downright paranoid—for guys like Fischer, it's as if the mere gaze of a gay guy has the strange, infectious power to rob you of your masculinity. But one can understand how the idea generates mild discomfort even among guys who are pretty accepting.
First, let's state the obvious. For as long as there have been sex-segregated locker rooms—and, if we're talking about the Romans, public baths—gay guys have been showering with straight guys; it's a natural consequence of using sex as a proxy for sexual orientation. The only difference now is that, at least in the military or on sports teams with openly gay members, you know who's gay. You'd think that homo-haters would prefer to know where the threat is coming from, but the point is that same-sex harassment in locker rooms should be no more a problem with openly gay athletes than it was before. It would be silly to say that no guy has ever been hit on in a locker room, but as far as I know this has not been a widespread problem in any of the major sports leagues; having a colleague who's had the courage to be honest about who he is won't change that.
Which brings me to the main point: As a gay man, I can assure you that we're probably less likely to look at your junk than your fellow straight guys. Rather than engage in the typical bro-to-bro bravado at the gym—I've never witnessed towel-snapping fights so often portrayed in movies, but I have seen guys shout boisterously across the locker room, pat each other on the back, and comment on each other's bodies ("dude, what'd you do to get those pecs?")—I and the gay friends I've spoken to do our best to keep to ourselves. Frankly, we find this behavior sort of terrifying. Part of this is no doubt a vestige of our closeted high-school days, when we'd stop at nothing to avoid being found out (as a lanky teenager with no eye-hand coordination to speak of, P.E. was a special challenge). But I've also come to see it as a means of showing respect for the comfort of others. I'm aware that even the most gay-friendly straight guy doesn't want to be ogled in the locker room—who does?—and do my best not to give off that impression.
This is precisely what a Department of Defense working group found in recommending how to implement the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." In addition to posing a logistical nightmare, the group predicted that creating separate facilities for gays and straights would stigmatize gay service-members and that concerns about integrated showers were based on stereotypes about gay people as predators. Gay service members, their report said, have "learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in situation [sic] such as this."
Despite the plot lines of countless porno flicks, anyone who's a regular gym goer can tell you the experience of sweating and heaving in the weight room or cleaning up afterward in the showers is hardly sexual. Gym tunnel vision sets in. With your iPod playing "Final Countdown"—or in my case, the soundtrack to Les Misérables—you're ensconced in a prayer-like state of isolation. Church time isn't for cruising, and for most of us, neither is gym time.
Allowing gays and straights to share locker rooms begs the question of whether we should stop segregating these spaces by sex altogether. If gays can shower with straight guys, shouldn't straight guys be able to shower with women? In principle, this seems like a reasonable conclusion—until you take into account our current gender and power dynamics. Women are regularly victimized by men; this includes not only being disproportionately the victims of sexual assault and rape, but everyday harassment like being cat-called while walking down the street. Like all-women's colleges, sex-segregated changing facilities provide women a sanctuary from these pressures. So long as our culture puts up with and encourages such behavior, women should be able to keep the boys out of the locker room.
Note that in the scenario above, we're not talking about men needing protection from lecherous women. Similarly, it is not straight guys who are bullied, become the victim of hate crimes, or have discriminatory laws passed against them. The most ridiculous thing about the gay-shower scare tactic is that it paints straight guys as helpless sheep when in fact—in the locker room and in life—they have most of the power. Unless we're talking about an all-gay sports team, trust me: Straight guys, you have nothing to worry about.
Social Flutterby
Tue, 2013-04-30 13:10
The conceit of some heterosexuals! Gay guys that I know, are self-effacing, polite, and choosy. Before worrying you're going to be the subject of unwelcome advances from gay guys, first check yourself out (honestly) in the mirror! If you're not exactly being hounded by straight women, chances are you're going to be pretty safe in the changing rooms! As a woman, I wouldn't be too phased by sharing facilities. We're used to being demeaned by straight guys, being the victims of unwanted comments, being judged by our looks and physical attributes. If we're to have communal facilities, I would only say, you'll have to excuse the shavers in the shower, and please remember those bins are for sanitary products.
Tue, 2013-04-30 14:46
As a gay man that swims daily and showers at a public gym, I would be dishonest if I said I never saw another guy I found attractive in the locker room. However, I can honestly say that I have never imposed on a straight guy by checking them out, staring at them, making an advance or doing anything that might make them uncomfortable.
First and foremost, it would be against my value system to disrespect someone else by invading their comfort zone with covert leering or overt lewd conduct. Being naked in any situation, especially a public shower or locker room is a vulnerable experience. I would always treat others as I would like to be treated myself.
Second, the vast majority of straight men don't attract me. Like many of my gay friends, I have a narrowly defined type and you're not it. Straight men I've observed don't seem to operate under these limits. I often see them sexualizing any female that moves, thin or fat, young or old, if it has T and A with a pulse, they will joke openly with their buddies about how they will "take a piece of that". I suppose they project their own proclivities onto gay men and think we want to sleep with all of you. I have seen the most ugly overweight obnoxious balding straight guys (who know deep inside that a really beautiful woman is totally out of their league) think that any gay man they come across wants to have sex with them.
Third, if you actually were attractive in a straight public setting, I'm more concerned with being ridiculed than getting a vicarious high by secretly checking you out. Maybe this is a legacy of gay ridicule growing up in junior high and high school gyms, but showering with straight men intimidates me. I don't want to do anything that will trigger their paranoia and lead to hazing or attack. Therefore, most of the time I keep to myself and religiously keep my gaze away from anyone's body and especially their private parts. That is not true of most straight men I observe at the gym. They talk, pat each other on the back, comment on each other's progress in building ripped muscles. The shower without any hint of intimidation and often swagger through the wet areas with adrenalin and machismo from working out.
Lastly, I would say that many straight guys seem to have very fragile egos hidden under all the hyper masculinity playing competitive sports or working out at a gym. If you are comfortable with your own sexuality, then you are not threatened by someone else's. Straight guys often demean women by sexualizing them or calling them sluts or whores. They often accuse someone of being a fucking queer or faggot to dehumanize them as human beings. All of this is about judging others and putting someone else down to feel morally superior and better about themselves. This base conceit and sexual grandiosity makes any man appear really unappealing, no matter how physically attractive they might. be.
Wed, 2013-05-01 09:49
I'm a straight guy. I've always known I was straight. The fear that I might "change" never entered my mind. Therefore, it's been easy for me not to care what anyone else's orientation might be.
My experience with homophobic men is that their "logic" is anywhere from self-contradictory to non-existent.
I ask them whether they think gay men are tougher than they are. They say, hell no, gay men are wimps. Then what, I ask them, do you think you have to fear from a gay man? What would you do if a gay man hit on you in the shower room? "I'd put him in the hospital! I'd fuckin' kill him!" And you don't think the gay man knows that? Mortal terror has this oh-so-peculiar way of destroying the sex drive.
Finally, when they talk about how excited they'd be to be in a women's shower room, I ask them to take a look around at the women they see in any public place. All of them, not just the ones they find attractive. Then imagine them naked. Few of them wouldn't appeal to these guys.
So, in summation: homophobic men, take a damn chill pill!
Sat, 2013-05-04 18:45
Given my age and the old belly flopping out I'd feel appreciative if a gay guy checked me out. So what. Look but dont touch
Of course I' a real flamng liberal with many gay friends. Hang out at their fav gay bar in balitmmore most friday nites. Lots o f hugging, some on the neck light kissing also - its all about showing respect and a litle do as the romans do scenario
The people most scared about gays checking them out are almost certainly the ones who fear their bodies response would be automatic - in the crotch area
Its called exposure of REACTION FORMATION -- look it up on wiki
BTW when to drop the soap? when some anti gay loudmouth is spouting off. Make sure he sees it and watch to see the reaction.
Wed, 2013-05-01 14:31
While I appreciate the perspective of the article in that it marshalls some strong points I still think there's some additional honesty that needs to be added. First of all, there is an answer to the question and that answer is YES! Straight men check each other out too and are also frequently curious about the anatomy of other guys although probably not for the purpose of minor sexual gratification. This fact has already been confirmed in studies. However, all gays are not equally respectful of the privacy rights of other men in the locker and shower room and anyone who works out on regular basis knows this is true. I'm not sure how I feel about the "why not" arguments for gender neutral locker rooms but I will say that giving me a rendition of the power dynamics and sexual predations of straight men against women doesn't cut it because it avoids the central question. The question is do straight men have a legitimate interest in not being viewed as sex objects in a vulnerable locker room or shower situation. I say they absolutely do. I'm not sure about how we deal with that but ignoring their personal privacy rights by saying "don't worry about it" or "get over it" doesn't seem honest based upon my experience. I can say that within the last 10-15 years there has been an increasing tendency to use the locker room for storage of gym bags and personal items only while you're working out and if you can wait to shower then that's what you do. (That's also a result of the prevalence of cell phone cameras ) As social openness about sexuality becomes even more common we are going to have to get used to wrangling with some uncomfortable issues even if we don't like the discussion.
Thu, 2013-05-02 15:35
Puleeeeze! As a gay man, of course I check out the dudes in the showers. I am gay, not dead. However, most straight guys are worth a glance, let alone a second look. As the article states, one learns to do this discretely and without alarming the observed. One does one's best to avoid the uncertainty principle, that is having the observer affect the observed. The straight guys that seem to fear having a gay man check them out are almost universally the ones I do NOT want to see naked. However, if Mario Lopez was in the shower with me, I sneak a peak or seventy.
The rules seems to hold at the SF Pride Parade, too. All the guys wandering about naked should be covered with a blanket and the cute guys we all want to see strip down keep their pants on.
Sat, 2013-11-30 19:26
I can say as a gay guy I very very rarely check out other guys in the locker room. When I'm in the locker room I normally feel slightly embarrassed and self conscious (like how a naked straight guy might feel a little embarrassed and self conscious in a locker room full of women).
Also I consider it rude to be basically visually raping the locker room guys.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
With our vast range of Fox items, be sure to grab the Fox Range Jacket. With elevated exterior details, the Lockdown is sure to keep you warm and looking good at the same time.
- Primaloft premium insulation.
- Nylon, Spandex foam storm cuffs and interior collar.
- Exterior branded label.
- Critically sealed seams.
- 3,000 mm Waterproof coating.
- Fox logo patch on sleeve.
- Sherpa lining.
- 100% Polyester.


text:
It still won't do much to affect the ratings, at least, I don't think it will. Though we'll find out soon enough. As long as the viewers stay around 1.33 million, then WWE will be fine with it.
Though, I don't know many people who think anything other than RAW/PPVs is Live as far as WWE programming


text:
Our Anti-Government Hypocrisy
Americans, the political scientists (and common sense) tell us, are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. On the level of ideology, they're opposed to government's intervention in the economy. On the level of daily life, they support such universal government programs as Social Security and Medicare.
But this split between abstract beliefs and the concrete needs of daily life doesn't just apply to government programs: It applies to government regulations as well. Last Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey that revealed what Pew termed "Mixed Views of Government Regulation." But "mixed," in this case, means anti-regulatory in matters of ideology and pro-regulatory in practice. Asked whether they believed that government regulation of business was necessary to protect the public or that such regulation usually does more harm than good, just 40 percent answered that regulation was necessary, while 52 percent said it did more harm than good.
But then came the specifics. Pew asked whether federal regulations should be strengthened, kept as is, or reduced in particular areas. When it came to food production and packaging, 53 percent said strengthen, 36 percent said keep as is, and just 7 percent said reduce. In environmental safeguards, the breakdown was 50 percent strengthen, 36 percent keep as is, 17 percent reduce. In car safety and efficiency, the split was 45, 42, and 9 percent. In workplace safety and health, it was 41, 45, and 10 percent. And with prescription drugs, it was 39, 33, and 20 percent.
Pew then followed up by asking whether there were too few regulations on particular kinds of businesses, the right amount, or too many. For the oil and gas industry, 44 percent said too little, 14 percent the right amount, and 36 percent too much. For banks and financial institutions, it was 43 percent too little, 20 percent just right, and 30 percent too much. For the health insurance industry, the breakdown was 40,18, and 37.
For large corporations generally, it was 43 percent too little, 19 percent the right amount, and 31 percent too much. Only when it came to small businesses did respondents believe that the regulatory burden was too onerous. Just 21 percent thought it too little and 23 percent just right, while 49 percent thought it too much. (How this belief is reconciled with respondents' belief that we need to keep or strengthen safeguards in workplace health and safety, which applies to small businesses no less than large, is anybody's guess.)
So the storyline of Americans' sentiments towards regulations is the same as the storyline of Americans' sentiments towards government programs: They hate them all, they love them each.
The question that these data raise is how the right has managed to win the ideological battle for so many years even as the public's support for specific government programs and regs has remained high. Some of this, surely, reflects the left's inability to make a good case for its worldview, but this clearly goes beyond the messaging strengths and weaknesses of left and right.
At one level, I suspect, it reflects the political consequences of government programs in a racially polarized nation, where it's easy to stigmatize government programs for the help they provide to the "others." (Such were the findings of Stan Greenberg's famous late-1980s survey of working-class whites in a suburb bordering Detroit.) But it also reflects our belief in the myth of rugged individualism and our congenital anti-statism. One pretty good definition of American exceptionalism is that while both Europeans and Americans have enacted all manner of government programs and regulations, Americans like to pretend we haven't. At its core, what makes Americans exceptional is our capacity for denial.
Tue, 2012-02-28 20:37
I suppose the world can always use another spelling cop. Apparently, it's been fixed.
Now, on to the meat of the matter. It is quite frustrating how so many Americans seem incapable of critical thought processes. I also think there is enough evidence of a rather immature emotional intelligence. The non-stop propaganda channels don't help either. Journalism has contributed greatly in the dumbing down of America in recent decades.
Progressives and Dems are going to have to improve their messaging. It may be true that other factors are at play and simple messaging changes won't help, but I don't quite buy it. I think the ridicule and other nonsense coming from the right wing have greatly contributed as well as the complicit media. It certainly doesn't seem we have our best and brightest leading the show for Dems. When Obama gets on message, he's pretty good at it. The problem is he is far too center-right in his approach. His approval ratings went up when he got back on the populist message.
It's certainly hard to figure out the thinking of those who respond with such self-contradiction.
Wed, 2012-02-29 15:47
Maybe the problem is that when you ask whether something needs more regulation, people agree that it does when they imagine well-crafted, effective regulations. However, they still acknowledge that when the inept government tries to regulate, the often do so in counterproductive ways.
Another possible explanation is that people are less apt to support an abstract principle that could apply negatively to themselves but are less weary of specific applications that target others. Since most people aren't involved in any one industry, asking people whether that particular industry should be regulated more would never threaten the majority. If people always voted in their own interest, presumably they would approve any tax on a particular group that is less than 50% of the populace but may nevertheless disapprove of raising taxes in general, the latter having the potential to affect them personally.
A final explanation is that people are stupid and inconsistent, which is indisputably true. Unlike politicians (often), voters change their minds about things with impunity. Doing what voters say they want will only keep you safe until enough of them change their minds.
Wed, 2012-02-29 17:21
Perhaps if the public were to become acquainted with public costs associated with regulations they'd return to their initial more skeptical view - which is not to say that all regulations are without merit. Regulations do not come cost free, so maybe the best public policy would be to require cost benefit analyses on many more proposed (and existing) regs than may now be the case.
Wed, 2012-02-29 21:56
Dear Mr. Meyerson,
To my mind, the best way forward is not to embrace government interference, but to go cold turkey on it:
- To stop bailing out banks.
- To stop allowing an anointed few to imagine that the world would be better off if they decided what other people would expend their labor on.
- To refuse to behave as if the state is the father-master of it's citizens there to dole out favors.
- To have government stop taking responsibility for others' private lives.
- To prevent government from using currency manipulation as a means to create Teflon prosperity and to push the costs it incurs off onto an abstract future.
- To accept that life is tragic, and that attempts by government are the cause of the business cycle rather than a solution to it.
Although my own understanding of economics, and my own prescription for an ethical government, is essentially the polar opposite of yours, I want to give you credit for this clearly written piece, with which I agree whole-heartedly.
Your piece clarifies the issues in a beautiful way. We cannot have a market and be socialist at the same time -- interference in the free market without being on the road to government control in the details of our lives. You have done a service to people of all political and economic stripes by writing this piece.
Thank you, Scott
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
Wed, 2012-02-29 22:47
"The question that these data raise is how the right has managed to win the ideological battle for so many years even as the public's support for specific government programs and regs has remained high."
The answer, I suspect, is that people understand perfectly well that many, if not most, existing government programs and regulations are ineffective, do more harm than good, cost too much for any good they actually do, or are in some other way too flawed to be acceptable. People don't necessarily want more programs and regulations, they want programs and regulations that work quietly, well, efficiently, inexpensively, and achieve their objectives and only those objectives.
Of course, it's not likely that any government can devise such programs and regulations. My take is that programs and regulations that don't meet those requirements should, for the most part, be abolished.
Fri, 2012-03-02 18:27
It is just that; hypocrisy. The mantra that government is "bad" is just an intellectually lazy catchall that is used by the right. Undermining government regulations would enhance the profits corporations and businesses by critically lowering safety and protection to people, but Republicans have stuck to this narrative for the many years (particularly the last 30 or so) and people now buy into it by sheer repetition. The thing that people fail to grasp is that we once existed without government regulation and in the post-industrial age it was turning America into a hellhole of robber barons and wage slaves. Of course some might argue that is what the right truly wishes to resurrect. Our grasp of history, or lack thereof, and our ability to ignore what is in our best interests is astounding.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
After the Wedding: Preserving Your Dress
With all the preparation and planning that goes into the wedding day, you may forget about what to do after all is said and done! Enter: the Association of Wedding Gown Specialists! Their nationwide network of specialists can take care of your dress from cleaning it after the wedding, preserving it and even restoring vintage gowns to their original beautiful condition. ZeroCarbon Wedding Gown Preservations ensures that while their specialists are caring for your gown, the processes that they use will not harm the environment (a big feat when you're talking about all their cleaning procedures!). And if you're restoring a vintage gown, they follow standard museum quality practices (so you know you can trust them!). Their MuseumCare Preservation specialists are even endorsed by the Association of Bridal Consultants and more than 70 museums and bridal designers recommend their services. Talk about guaranteed professional service.
> Other tips to preserving your dress