iftttwall

Princeton researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton reported that the mortality rate for midlife white non-Hispanic whites is rising. They found that the death rates for middle-aged white Americans, ages 45 to 54, has been rising since 1999. The rise in white midlife death rates is found entirely among those Americans with a high school degree or less. They attributed most of the increased mortality to drug overdoses, chronic liver disease, and suicides.

In column a few weeks back, I reported additional data that showed that the mortallity rates for whites ages 25 to 34 are also increasing.

Now two Columbia University researchers, Andrew Gelman and Jonathan Auerbach have published a re-analysis that suggests that the death rate trend identified by Case and Deaton may not be quite as bad as originally reported. They argue that the data need to be age-adjusted to account for the fact that the average age in each cohort is actually rising. This is important to take into account because your probability of dying in a given year doubles every 8 years.

So when Gelman and Auerbach make their age-adjustments to the 45 to 54 year-old cohort they find: 

Calculating the age-adjusted rates separately for each sex reveals a crucial result … The mortality rate among white non-Hispanic American women increased from 1999–2013. Among the corresponding group of men, however, the mortality rate increase from 1999–2005 is nearly reversed during 2005–2013.

In other words, the death rate for mid-life white women does indeed continue to rise, but it falls for mid-life men after 2005. So the news remains bad with regard to the death rates for mid-life white women. Although the death rate for mid-life white men is almost back to where it was in 1999, the overall trend is still not good because it is a reversal of the decades-long trend of falling death rates for the cohort of mid-life white American males.

A Three Rivers, Michigan, teenager is both the victim and perpetrator of a sex crime. He might land on the sex offender registry, and face criminal charges, all because he took an inappropriate photo—of himself.

The boy is unnamed in local news reporters, which note that he is under 15 years of age. He allegedly took a nude photo of himself on a girl’s cell phone. That girl sent the picture to another girl, who sent it to another. Preliminary charges are pending for all three—the boy was charged with manufacturing child porn, and the girls with distributing it. A prosecutor is still weighing whether to pursue the charges.

Police Detective Mike Mohney told WBST.com that sexting is a serious crime because it leads to “bullying,” and “real severe things like people committing suicide or violent crimes against others because they’re so embarrassed about it.”

Mohney’s statement is a perfect example of the inherent contradiction of ruining kids’ lives for sexting. If the goal is to avoid “severe consequences,” why would they pursue charges in the first place? If sexting-induced embarrassment is a source of violence and suicide, certainly the risk of embarrassment is made much worse by branding the offender a pedophile—for abusing no one but himself—and sentencing him to the sex offender registry.

Criminal charges don’t appear to deter other teens from sexting, either. As I noted in a recent op-ed for USA Today, a Drexel University study found that more than 50 percent of college undergraduates had sent sexts as minors. Some 88 percent of people surveyed had sent sexts, period. In other words, this is something that almost everyone is doing.

Authorities warn that the consequences for the underage are just too dire, but the most awful outcome is the one the authorities themselves impose on perpetrators: criminal charges. Can you imagine being a 14-year-old, trying to get your life back on track, after being socially stigmatized, expelled, charged with a crime, and publicly branded a sex offender? All because you took a picture of yourself?

Teens who create and share sexy photos aren’t child pornographers. They are teenagers. To pretend the law can suppress their natural curiosity about their own bodies, and each other’s, is to subscribe to vindictive madness and paranoia about human sexuality. These kids aren’t hurting themselves—we’re hurting them.

I have a post-mortem of Rand Paul‘s presidential campaign up over at CNN Opinion that begins with the observation that GOP voters are more fiscally conservative than their politicians, and ends with some observations about Paul’s vanquisher, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Here’s how it ends:

Fellow tea party senator and Iowa winner Ted Cruz has been very effective so far this campaign in doing what Rand Paul could not: converting that visceral anti-Washington sentiment into support. For his fans, Cruz’s long enemies list and off-putting demeanor are features, not bugs. Sadly for libertarians, that political canniness also involves blatant reversals on criminal justice reform, gratuitous calls to “carpet bomb” ISIS, and public vows to fight the alleged “crisis” of same-sex marriage.

Will Cruz pick up the banner of fiscal conservatism from his vanquished tea party opponent? He will most certainly try. Whether it can work, or whether he really means it, are different questions altogether.

Read the whole thing here. Reason on Rand Paul here.

American writer and “pickup artist” Roosh V is causing a bit of hysteria abroad in countries where citizens are even more likely than they are here to say that offensive speech is “dangerous.” The trouble started when Roosh V—real name Daryush Valizadeh—announced the organization of 165 simultaneous meetups on February 6 for followers of his “neomasculinity” movement, including gatherings across American and in countries such as Australia, Canada, Chile, England, Israel, and Scotland. Soon thereafter, activists in the U.K. and Canada began protesting the meetups, which they have labeled as “pro rape” events. 

Granted, Valizadeh doesn’t have the most progressive views on romantic relations. And in stories about his sexual exploits, he often crosses into consent grey areas. But being a brute or a cad isn’t illegal, and neither is writing rapey tall-tales. Nor is meeting with like-minded people to express unpopular views. 

Of course, this is exactly the problem for some, who are calling on their governments to ban Valizadeh from even entering the country, to ban his fans from meeting up, and to criminalize all anti-woman “hate speech”—an impossibly broad category that seems to include everything from common insults to political expression at odds with feminism. 

As of February 3, more than 55,000 people had signed a petition calling for the Scottish government to prevent Valizadeh from entering the country. “Promoting rape is hate speech, and should be treated as such,” the petition reads. 

Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland has been organizing with other women’s groups to protest Roosh V meetups in Scotland and pressure authorities to close the “gap in the criminal law” by designating “incitement of hatred against women” as a hate crime. “If what [Valizadeh] is doing is promoting rape then an incitement to hatred offence would enable us to deal with that,” she told The National. But as a Scottish government spokesperson pointed out, making “threats of sexual violence” is already against the law in Scotland, as is harassment that would “be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm.” Over in Canada, the mayors of cities where Roosh V meetups are planned took to the Internet to voice their displeasure. “Your pro-rape, misogynistic, homophobic garbage is not welcome in Ottawa,” tweeted Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Toronto Mayor John Torry tweeted that Roosh V “doesn’t reflect the values of Toronto and his statements about women are demeaning and unacceptable.” And Vancouver police have assured residents that they will be monitoring the Roosh V meetup there. 

All this for a dude with a blog and some self-published books? Or, rather, the fans of some dude with a blog and self-published books? I mean, look, I’ve been aware of Valizadeh since he blogged under “D.C. Bachelor” back in the mid-aughts, and I find his views as gross as his capacity for self-promotion is impressive, but … come on. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either Valizadeh or his fans intend any sort of public spectacle during these meetups, let alone any violence or incitements to violence against women. The entirety of activists’ “case” for keeping them out, or under the watchful eye of law enforcement, is that they simply do not like what these men believe.

And that’s rather insane for anyone who claims to be sticking up for the rights of the vulnerable, marginalized, or oppressed. Because a government allowed to whimsically ban someone from entering the country or ban a group of people from associating based purely on dislike for the content of their beliefs is sure as shit not a government that’s going to stop with pickup artists. Throughout history, limits on freedom of speech and association have come down hard on the left, because it’s the left that most frequently challenges the status quo. Lip service to social justice goals notwithstanding, there’s no reason to think that people in power are going to suddenly stop with this centuries-long tendency now. 

What’s more, this sort of illiberal behavior from the left only enables those with views like Roosh V fans. As Charlie Peters writes at Spiked, “when you censor extreme views, you force them underground where they escape criticism and become even more radical. If our politicians will not allow us to debate Valizadeh, then how do they ever expect his brand of nonsense to be repudiated?”

Students at Vassar College have struck a critical blow against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian: they signed a resolution calling on the college to divest from Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Without a doubt, the hour of Palestinian liberation has finally arrived.

You see, Ben & Jerry’s—despite having very liberal politics—is actually in cahoots with the Zionists, according to the various Vassar student groups who signed the resolution:

BEN & JERRY’S has a long-standing contractual relationship with an Israeli franchise that manufactures ice cream in Israel proper and sells it in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Despite the company’s Social Mission and history of supporting progressive causes, Ben & Jerry’s continues to tie its franchise to these illegal settlements. In short, while apartheid ensues in historic Palestine, Ben & Jerry’s “peace & love” ice cream continues to pass through Israeli checkpoints, and be transported on Jewish-only roads to be sold in Jewish-only settlements.

Ben & Jerry’s disputes this characterization of its relationship with the state of Israel. According to Campus Reform:

However, Ben & Jerry’s published a statement in 2015 in response to earlier attacks, claiming it had “no economic interest in the occupied territories.” In fact, the company denied accusations that it operated business facilities in occupied territories at all.

“The manufacturing facility and two scoop shops are located outside the occupied territories, just south of Tel Aviv,” the 2015 statement said, contradicting VBDSC’s accusations.

The resolution calls on Vassar to disallow students from consuming Ben & Jerry’s during official functions. I scream, you scream, we all scream because it never stops.

The Internet is freaking out today over a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that women of childbearing age who are not on birth control should abstain from alcohol, lest they unknowingly damage their hypothetical progeny.

USA Today reported:

“Alcohol can permanently harm a developing baby before a woman knows she is pregnant,” said Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and even if planned, most women won’t know they are pregnant for the first month or so, when they might still be drinking. The risk is real. Why take the chance?” 

Which makes now a good moment for a reminder that this is hardly the first time the CDC has treated women as irresponsible potential baby-porters.

A quick note: The suggestions below are scientifically sound—more so, I would guess, than the booze recs. (For more on that, check out Jacob Sullum’s “Drink Up, Moms!” or Emily Oster’s excellent book, Expecting Better.)

I actually did take folic acid for years before I became pregnant. (Thanks, mom!) People who are on antidepressants should talk to their doctors about all the ramifications, including on an unplanned pregnancy. 

But that doesn’t change the fact that there is something profoundly creepy about a government agency officially telling women to forgo pleasurable or life-improving choices solely on the basis of their status as the theoretical mothers of the nation’s children.

OK, let’s get to the nanny statism!

For starters, everyone with functional ovaries should be popping folic acid like T.I. is popping bottles.

The U. S. Public Health Service and CDC recommend that all women of childbearing age consume 0.4 mg (400 micrograms) of folic acid daily to prevent two common and serious birth defects, spina bifida and anencephaly.

All women between 15 and 45 years of age should consume folic acid daily because half of U.S. pregnancies are unplanned and because these birth defects occur very early in pregnancy (3-4 weeks after conception), before most women know they are pregnant.

Then, of course, as CDC honcho Thomas Freidan reminded us last year in a news release titled “Opioid painkillers widely prescribed among reproductive age women,” doctors of women who are in pain should reconsider treating that pain with opioids, lest they damage a hypothetical future human:

“Taking opioid medications early in pregnancy can cause birth defects and serious problems for the infant and the mother,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.  “Many women of reproductive age are taking these medicines and may not know they are pregnant and therefore may be unknowingly exposing their unborn child.  That’s why it’s critical for health care professionals to take a thorough health assessment before prescribing these medicines to women of reproductive age.”

Next, think twice about those antidepressants, ladies! Because (again) you’re probably pregnant right now, as a new study in the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report noted just this week. One of the authors told CNN:

“Early pregnancy is time that is critical for baby’s development and because so many women may be taking medications without knowing they are pregnant, we wanted to get a better sense of trends of antidepressant use of all women of reproductive age,” said Jennifer N. Lind, epidemiologist in the CDC’s Birth Defects Branch.

To be fair: This report was presented with much more nuance than the alcohol study, with headlines like “Women need better info about pregnancy and antidepressants,” perhaps because antidepressants do not stimulate the same puritanical impulses as alcohol and opiates.

Pain meds, antidepressants, and booze carry risks for everyone. Having government officials ask “Why take the chance?” about women of reproductive age in particular suggests that there are no legitimate upsides to balance the equation.