Palin vs Obama

There is much that is very interesting about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin. She hunts moose, runs marathons. and takes on corrupt politicians in her own party. If she were a man she'd be a man's man. When it comes to macho she outmans both Obama and Biden.

What I'm finding perhaps the most interesting though is that she is most often being compared, not to her VP rival Joe Biden, but to the leader of the Democratic ticket - Barack Obama. Everyone is talking about who between Obama and Palin has the most pertinent experience. Which one of these two is most prepared to be Commander-In-Chief? Does Obama or Palin have the best understanding of our economy? Does Palin or Obama have the better grasp of our energy situation? If we face another terror incident do we want Obama or Palin calling the shots?

Sarah Palin isn't being compared to Joe Biden and Obama supporters don't want to compare Obama to John McCain. Everyone wants to compare Obama to Palin. What does this say about the two tickets?

FLDS: Non Traditional Marriage Ages?

There is a lot of angst among many people about the ‘untraditional marriages’ of the FLDS and in particular the age of some brides. As I’ve mentioned earlier, for those who study history the FLDS marriages not only don’t seem unusual, but are actually quite normal. Historically anyway. Following are some things to help put this in to better perspective and as a follow-up to this post that discussed this issue.

For those who are interested in additional information on this I’d strongly recommend reading ‘Marriage, A History’ by Stephanie Coontz.

Quick Disclaimer: I do not believe that in today’s culture it is advisable for anyone to marry younger than 18. On the other hand, I do not believe that government interference, particularly in the case of a sub-culture such as the FLDS, is beneficial.

(Click on the image for more detail)

This chart is based on general historical research up through 1350ce and based on genealogical data from 1350 to 2000. Each data point represents 25 years or one quarter century. This chart assumes a human existence of 8,000 years. The least amount of time humans are believed to have existed is 6,000 years. Many scientists believe 10,000 to 18,000 is more likely. Jared Diamond posits a 100,000 year existence. Imagine the date to your left as long as you desire…

Throughout the bulk of history and throughout the world it is widely believed that women married relatively soon after their first menstrual period or menarche and what information we have indicates that most married between about 13 and 17 with the majority marrying at about age 14. Beginning in about 300ce the upper age seems to have begun increasing and around 800ce leveled off at about 19.

In general it is believed that the wealthier brides married later and those in cities married later than those in rural communities.

Genealogical data on marriage dates and age of the bride and groom begins to become useable from about 1350 onward. A research project tabulating this genealogical data is currently underway with preliminary data included in the chart. This genealogical data is based on genealogies of ancestors of people residing in the US and was procured from Ancestry.com and the LDS Family History Center. Two independent sets of GEDCOM data were collected and analyzed. Each set included at least 100 useable marriages in each quarter century except for the period 1375 to 1450 which averaged 89 marriages per quarter century. A useable marriage was one where the birth date of both participants as well as the marriage date were present in the data. Both sets produced similar numbers.

The data at this point is believed relatively accurate though it is unverified. Most of this data is entered by amateur genealogists. While accuracy is somewhat of a concern, that both data sets utilizing different family names produced nearly identical results provides some level of comfort. I am not a statistician so I am relying on others for statistical expertise.

The average bridal age is the average of all marriages. The upper and lower ages were calculated based on the outer bounds to include at least the most concise 80^th percentile to 1/10 year increments. Stats folks reading this will probably understand what I just wrote far better than I. In most years the upper and lower bounds included over 90% of all marriages. Outliers generally tended to be 40% below range and 60% above. While most second marriages were believed eliminated, some could not be accurately determined.

The data indicated relative stability in ages from about 1350 to the early 1800’s. Around 1820 the upper age began to increase.

During the mid 18^th century there appeared to be a very noted temporary increase in bridal ages of those people in southern Europe. Not sure what the cause of this was. This drove up the upper end of the range but had only minimal impact on the overall average.

The two most significant jumps occurred in the quarter century ending in 1825 when the average age rose from 15.6 to 17 and in the quarter century ending in 2000 when the average age rose from 20 to 24.5.

The average age of all marriages from the genealogical data is 16.38. The lower age range dipped below 13 in the quarter centuries ending in 1425, 1500, 1550, 1675, and 1700.

FLDS: Raising The Responsibility Bar

There are clearly incidences where children need to be removed from their homes. Some parents are intentionally abusive and some are either mentally incapable of caring for their children or are just plain stupid. Removal though needs to be extremely rare, only when absolutely necessary, and only when removal will clearly produce a better outcome for the child than the status quo.

Current laws around removal of children run something like: “CPS must prove by sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that: (1) reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s home; and (2) allowing the child to remain in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare.”

Or, to sustain a child's removal from the parents, TDFPS must prove at an adversary hearing that "(1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child; (2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child's removal; and (3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home." Tex. Fam. Code sec. 262.201(b).

Or, “a child should be removed if he or she would be in danger with the parent or guardian or if “continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare.””

These are all good as far as they go but fall short in one extremely critical element - will the removal be better for the child.

All of these existing laws make an assumption on some level that if a child is in any danger in their current home that state care will at least be safer. This is a very wrong assumption.

- The removal act itself will very likely cause mental and emotional harm to the child.

- The removal will, rightly or wrongly, likely cause harm to the child’s relationship to their parents.

- Living in any form of institutional care for any length of time is likely to cause mental and emotional harm to the child.

- An estimated 25% of children in foster care are abused.

All of these harms are also very likely to be life-long. Each mistake in removal will, at the hands of government, cause permanent harm to a child who otherwise would not be harmed.

All state laws then should include an element similar to. “That with the knowledge that the child will endure permanent mental and emotional harm by the removal and institutionalization itself and with the knowledge that the child may likely be physically and emotionally abused in institutional and foster care, that remaining in the home is clearly and convincingly a greater danger to the child than than all of those dangers presented by removal.”

This raises the bar to a more appropriate level and makes it more clear to all concerned the gravity of the decision being made.

Edit: Just after posting this I was told of this excellent post and comments on IPercieve

FLDS: Those Atrocious Underage Marriages...

In this post I mentioned the 51 marriage licenses the state of Texas issued to brides under the age of 14 in 1970 and speculated that based on our current thinking these must all be awful marriages with such terribly young brides and such. So bad in fact that today we’d make their marriages illegal, jail the parents, and take away their children.

Well, we now know how 7 of these brides lives turned out. 4 are still married, 1 died, 1 was widowed after 27 years of marriage, and 1 divorced after 11 years of marriage. The 4 who are still married all said that they are still HAPPILY married. They’ve had some rough times and one of the couples separated for a year, but all are still married, all have kids, and all said they have no regrets about their marriage.

The bride who died was married for 31 years, died when she was 43 in a car crash, had 7 children and 4 grandchildren. According to her 29 year old son his parents were the happiest people he’d ever known. They loved each other and loved their family. They were, and are, Baptist and were married in a Baptist church. Shame on the Baptists and state of Texas for allowing such an atrocious marriage.

Are Street Addresses Antiquated?

Well, back from vacation again...

My cell phone has TomTom GPS on it (running in Windows Mobile). This is the same software and maps as the regular TomTom except this one is built in to my cell so it’s always with me. I’ve been using this for some time and it has been a great tool. I travel a fair amount and having a GPS with me all the time is beneficial not only when driving, but also when walking. Before I leave on a trip I can enter destinations in my contacts if they’re not already in there and just select one to have TomTom guide me there.

Occasionally when I put in an address it will be off by a bit, though rarely more than 20 or 30 feet and usually by 1 address number so it just puts me next door. 9 times out of 10 it’s spot on. The biggest problem is with new roads that aren’t yet in the system. This past week though I’ve experienced 2 incidents where it put us over 2 miles from our destination. Both on the island of Kawai in Hawaii, both put us on the correct road, just a long way from where on the road the places were. The first was Gaylord’s restaurant and the second was the Grand Hyatt in Poipu.

So, with these 2 experiences along with other more minor incidents I’m wondering if it’s not time to update our concept of what an address is. Many travelers already us GPS navigation and thousands more begin to every day. Most new phones include GPS receivers as do many new cars.

Businesses and individuals fairly quickly got used to the idea of including email and web addresses on business cards, literature, and websites. Maybe now is the time for everyone to get used to also including GPS coordinates – Latitude and Longitude. Street addresses have worked well for a long time, but new GPS technology allows for a better system.

For instance, the Grand Hyatt in Kauai might be listed as

21.8762 / -159.4397

Or

Lat: 21.8762
Lon: -159.4397

Seems bulky and just a lot of numbers, but if you’ve used a GPS and spent time entering country, city, street, and address # you’ll quickly see the benefit of just entering these numbers. It’s not only easier to enter, but far more accurate. Using GPS coordinates eliminates problems of street numbers or roads being off or of new roads or addresses not yet being entered into the system. Worst case you can see where you are currently, where you want to be, and pick your way through streets to your destination.

The best news is that this is not something that requires any major new technology or requires a standards body to establish a worldwide standard. The standard already exists. Anyone can determine the GPS coordinates for their location in about 30 seconds with any GPS device and then add them to their website.

The millions of us who use GPS will appreciate the effort!

Restaurant Rants

Government Intrusion - Restaurants in New York are now required to publish nutritional information about their food. While I generally dislike government intrusion or mandates, this is one I agree with. This is not onerous on the restaurants and gives consumers the information they need to make good choices. Now, if we could all just make those good choices…

Slimy Employees - Both Coldstone Creamery and Pei Wei get awards. Coldstone has huge posters in their windows with huge letters touting that their new yogurt (nrgize?) is only 25 calories! In very small type they note that this is per ounce. According to the gal behind the counter the smallest portion they serve is officially 5 ounces but in reality is probably about 7. At least they did put the small type on there…Pei-Wei, a division of P. F. Changs, lists some relatively healthy looking nutritional information on their website and tout that it is for ONE SERVING. But they won’t sell you that one serving. If you try to order one serving they’ll refuse. Everything they sell is TWO SERVINGS. I think I’d trust a snake-oil salesman before Pei-Wei. What kind of slimy people work for this company? I worked in marketing for a number of years and I could spin the benefits of my product with the best of them, but I don’t think I’d have ever stooped as low as Pei-Wei or Coldstone.

Subway and Noodles get my award for health and honesty. They both publish nutritional info for all of their meals and they’re not misleading about it. They both also offer a number of meals that are both good tasting and healthy (low calories, high fiber, etc.)

An energy solution better than proper tire pressure - It’s not unusual in the summer for my wife to grab a jacket when we’re going out to dinner. Even when it’s 90F outside. Because though it might be 90F outside, it’ll likely be about 60F inside. When I jokingly ordered ‘some heat’ at Don Pablos the other night the waitress offered to switch places with me and I’d understand why it’s so cold in there. I guess I’d rather be cold than have some hairy waiters sweat dripping in my food, but I’d think that maybe hiring a few more servers so that they didn’t have to run so much and then turning the AC up a few degrees might be an alternative.

I know you're 60, but are you over 21? - I was grabbing a quick bite in Chipotle today. 3 guys riding bikes came in for lunch and ordered beers. One of the 3 didn’t have ID on him and the manager refused to sell them more than 2 beers without the guy being able to prove his age. None of these guys could have been under 50 and I’d guess they were all over 60. I think even a 6-year-old wouldn’t confuse them with someone under 21. The manager said this was a corporate rule and there was nothing he could do about it. Besides the general stupidity of this there’s the added humor that Chipotle sponsors a pro bike racing team in Europe. One of these 3 guys was even wearing a Chipotle bike jersey. A 16-year-old working for Chipotle’s bike team in Europe can buy a beer anywhere the team travels in Europe. A 14-year-old watching the team can probably do the same (ID’s are rarely checked). And Europe (except perhaps the UK) has far fewer drinking problems than we do*. Go figure.

* UNICEF’s Report Card Number 7 on Child Well-Being in OECD countries did note that only about 15% of 11, 13, and 15-year-old’s in the US report having been drunk two or more times. While higher than France, Italy, and a few others, it is also about average for all OECD countries. This is the good news. The bad news is that our problems begin at about 16 and it’s between about 16 and 30 that our problems dwarf Europe’s.

FLDS: Here Today, Pervert Tomorrow

This is an issue that has bugged me for some time. But I’ve had and am still having difficulty putting it in to words.

On April 21 in this post I pointed out the hundreds of people Texas considered good citizens one day, but perverts the next. This because of a law brought forth by Texas State Representative Harvey Hildebran to raise the age of legal marriage.

Arbitrary laws like this are scary. It’s one thing to say that murder, assault, rape, or theft are crimes. They clearly are. Always have been and I assume always will be. These are not arbitrary. They’re pretty concrete. A murderer, rapist, or thief is a murderer, rapist, or thief yesterday, today, and tomorrow. They’ve committed a crime, an offense against another, they’re a criminal.

What I’m having a difficult time getting my head around is how, with just the stroke of a pen, a person who, on Tuesday is celebrated as a new husband, on Wednesday is now magically a criminal and is prosecuted and imprisoned as a pervert – for the exact same action. If a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old want to marry who have they committed an offense against? And why is it an offense today but never before in history?

For all eternity, thousands of years, people got married at about 14. For most of history 14 was actually the average. And this includes tens of thousands in Texas. Each and every year between 1966 and 2005 the State of Texas issued more marriage licenses to girls under 18 to marry men twice their age, 178 in 1970, 51 in 2001, than all of the girls they’ve claimed have ever been the ‘victim’ of underage marriage in the FLDS community.

In 2001 Texas licensed 9 brides under 14 and in 1970 there were 51. It’d be interesting to find these 51 and see how they faired. Franklin and Arlene, Modesto and Ana, Roy and Rita, Gary and Paula, and the 47 other couples. If they’re statistically average almost half divorced and 10% served some time in prison. Should the state of Texas have taken all of their children and thrown all of the men in Jail? Would that have produced a better outcome than whatever became of these 51 couples?

Even in the period between when the law was passed and when it took effect there were 71 legal marriage licenses issued by the state of Texas to people under 16 to get married.

Were these husbands, these 71 men, perverts? Should they have been prosecuted and jailed? Their wives and children taken from them and forced to fend for themselves? How about the 2,460 men who married women under 17 in 2002? Or any of the tens of thousands who did so prior to this new law being passed?

Was this law raising the marriage age pure religious persecution? It was fine for decades for people to marry at 14, but not now that the Mormons moved in? Jesus’ adopted father Joseph would be thrown in Jail if he lived in Texas today. As would Solomon and a long list of other Biblical figures. It might be interesting to check the ages of the wives of a few highly regarded evangelists over the past century. I bet we’ll find some criminals amongst them.

For an act to go from celebrated one day to criminal the next is a huge leap. And one I cannot make.

I don’t at all disagree with discouraging people from marrying too young. But criminalizing it? Investigating, arresting, and incarcerating husbands and fathers because we personally disagree with their lifestyle or just because we think they made a stupid choice? Because we personally think that 14 or 15 is too young to marry?

If the bride and groom both want this, if neither disagrees with it, what good do we do in criminalizing it? Marrying this young is certainly not ideal, but is throwing the husband (and potentially the father of children) in jail going to help? In the process we’re going to create one more single-mother home with a bunch of fatherless children. And we wonder why we have so many problems in our society?

If we think that by making it illegal to get married at a younger age we’ll reduce any problems, we need to open our eyes a bit. We are sexual beings and we generally begin our sexual maturity in our early teens. This is God’s law and how he created us and no law we make will change that. We may have reduced the number of 14 and 15 year olds getting married, but just as many are having sex and making babies. Now they just do it without the benefits of marriage. That sure has worked well hasn’t it?

I strongly advocate waiting to get married until at least late teens, but better yet early to mid 20’s. I also advocate waiting to have sex until marriage. But let’s be realistic. [Some people, and perhaps most even, do not have the self-control to hold off on sex until their 20’s. We’re fooling ourselves if we think anything else.]

A Better Way

There are better ways to discourage youthful marriage and do so without incurring all of the problems of making it criminal.

One is to require counseling and even that the prospective bride and groom be required to review and sign, with the counselor, a document that spells out the potential pitfalls of getting married too young and that both the bride and groom are willing participants and are not being coerced against their will. A state can even require that this be done before a judge. Here though the Judge’s only function is to insure that they know what they are doing and that they are doing so of their own will – that neither are being forced.

And you know what, some of these marriages will fail. The couples will have arguments and disagreements and some will end in divorce. But this is better than the state going in and prematurely ending these marriages because you know what else? Some of these marriages, and maybe even most of them, will be successful. They will produce children who will grow up in a two-parent home with parents at least as imperfect as any of us who married in our twenties. But also parents who love them and want the best for them.

WWJD

Yes, What Would Jesus Do? If Jesus met a 40-year-old man who had a 14-year-old wife would he throw the guy in jail? If they had a kid or two would he call that proof that the guy had sexually abused an underage girl and then throw him in jail? Tell her that she was stupid to have married him and now she’s on her own to raise her children without her husband?

I don’t think so. I think he would encourage them in their marriage. Encourage them to stay together and raise their children to the best of their ability.