A World Without Work. By Ross Douthat. New York Times, February 23, 2013.
The Affluent Economy: Our Misleading Obsession with Growth Rates. By Scott Winship. The Breakthrough, Winter 2013.
Liberalism and the New Inequality. By Dalton Conley. The Breakthrough, Summer 2011.
Does the Middle Class Really Have It So Bad? By Andrew Sullivan. The Dish, February 21, 2013.
Less Innovation, More Inequality. By Edmund S. Phelps. New York Times, February 24, 2013.
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Cyrus Cylinder and the Jews. By Jonathan S. Tobin.
The Cyrus Cylinder in the British Museum. Wikipedia.
The Cylinder and the Jews. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, February 22, 2013.
Find the Missing Word. By Roger Cohen. New York Times, February 21, 2013.
Cyrus, Ahmadinejad, and the Politics of Purim. By Alex Joffe. Jewish Ideas Daily, February 1, 2011.
Cyrus Cylinder. The British Museum. Translation.
Cyrus Cylinder. Wikipedia.
Cyrus Cylinder. NIAS.
The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy. By Amélie Kuhrt. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, February 1983.
Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1. By Lisbeth S. Fried. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 95, No. 2 (October 2002).
Neil MacGregor: 2600 years of history in one object. TED, July 2011. At YouTube.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Time to Get Tough with Egypt and Morsi. By Robert Kagan and Michele Dunne.
U.S. needs to show Egypt some tough love. By Robert Kagan and Michele Dunne. Washington Post, February 20, 2013.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Kagan and Dunne:
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry need to pay attention to Egypt — now. The most populous Arab country, poster child of the Arab Spring, faces a looming economic crisis and a widespread breakdown in law and order, including increasingly prevalent crime and rape. Either will cripple Egypt’s faltering effort to become a stable democracy.
The Obama administration has treated Egypt primarily as an economic problem and has urged Cairo to move quickly to satisfy International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands to qualify for financing. But there is no separating Egypt’s economic crisis from its political crisis — or from the failures of its current government. Egypt’s economy is struggling and disorder is rampant primarily because the country’s leaders the past two years — first the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, now President Mohamed Morsi — have failed to build an inclusive political process. Until they do, no amount of IMF funding will make a difference.
Although Morsi won a narrow victory last summer, he has yet to learn what it means to lead in a democratic society. His Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt’s strongest political force, but it does not command a majority of public support. It cannot simply force its will on the nation, especially one still aroused by the spirit of revolution. Morsi can hardly take on urgent tasks, such as the cutting of wasteful fuel subsidies and the reformation of a corrupt interior ministry and police force, when much of the country is against him and ready to take to the streets at the least provocation.
Under Morsi’s rule, Egyptian society has become polarized between Islamists and non-Islamists. Enraging the political opposition late last year, he railroaded through a new constitution that contains inadequate protections for the rights of women and non-Muslims and leaves open the possibility of Islamic clerical oversight of legislation. Ignoring protests about the flawed process by which the constitution was drafted and passed, Morsi is moving ahead to legislative elections based on an electoral law to which the opposition objects. Meanwhile, his government has cracked down on journalists, brought spurious charges against opposition leaders and limited the right to public protests. It is considering legislation that would constrain the activities of non-governmental organizations even more than Hosni Mubarak did.
The increasingly desperate secular opposition parties have formed a “National Salvation Front,” but under the surface they are divided between those who want to force Morsi to compromise and those who want to force him from power. Even though most favor the economic reforms necessary to get an IMF loan, many feel they must mobilize street protests against any Morsi action.
The result is that, with Egypt at the edge of bankruptcy — it has enough reserves to pay for only three more months of food and fuel imports — the government and the opposition are locked in a game of chicken. The economy is sinking, political conflict is rising and the security situation is deteriorating.
Washington’s response to this crisis has largely been business as usual. Just as the United States once clung to Mubarak, the Obama administration has hewed closely to Morsi, offering a visit to Washington and continuing to deliver the annual $1.3 billion in military assistance — including a recent shipment of F-16 aircraft. The administration’s response to Morsi’s majoritarian bullying has been muted. Egypt’s opposition and nonpartisan human rights groups believe, understandably, that Washington has resumed ignoring undemocratic practices so long as the Egyptian government protects U.S. strategic interests. Outside of opening new contacts with the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, there has been no fundamental reassessment of U.S. policy toward Egypt since Mubarak’s removal in 2011. Our military and economic aid packages remain the same — except that nearly all democracy and civil-society assistance has been cut off.
It’s time for a new approach. Both the administration and Congress need to fully review military and economic assistance to Egypt. What does the Egyptian army need to bring security to the Sinai? Probably not F-16s. What conditions should Congress place on aid? Previous packages have appropriately been conditioned on progress toward democracy, but the administration has insisted on a national security waiver and has exercised it to provide the aid regardless of Egypt’s behavior. Perhaps Congress should not permit such a waiver in the next aid bill.
As for Morsi’s planned trip to Washington, it would be better to hold that invitation until he demonstrates a sincere commitment to working with all of Egyptian society and allowing genuine freedom to all citizens. That means supporting a law that meets international standards on regulating civil society, allowing watchdog organizations to operate freely and finally resolving the controversial status of foreign and foreign-funded NGOs. It means ending the persecution of journalists and opposition figures, committing to reform the police and hold them accountable, and building a consensus on such critical matters as the constitution and electoral law.
The United States made a strategic error for years by coddling Mubarak, and his refusal to carry out reforms produced the revolution of Tahrir Square. We repeat the error by coddling Morsi at this critical moment. The United States needs to use all its options — military aid, economic aid and U.S. influence with the IMF and other international lenders — to persuade Morsi to compromise with secular politicians and civil-society leaders on political and human rights issues to rebuild security and get the economy on track.
More on Egypt and Morsi here.
Kagan and Dunne:
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry need to pay attention to Egypt — now. The most populous Arab country, poster child of the Arab Spring, faces a looming economic crisis and a widespread breakdown in law and order, including increasingly prevalent crime and rape. Either will cripple Egypt’s faltering effort to become a stable democracy.
The Obama administration has treated Egypt primarily as an economic problem and has urged Cairo to move quickly to satisfy International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands to qualify for financing. But there is no separating Egypt’s economic crisis from its political crisis — or from the failures of its current government. Egypt’s economy is struggling and disorder is rampant primarily because the country’s leaders the past two years — first the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, now President Mohamed Morsi — have failed to build an inclusive political process. Until they do, no amount of IMF funding will make a difference.
Although Morsi won a narrow victory last summer, he has yet to learn what it means to lead in a democratic society. His Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt’s strongest political force, but it does not command a majority of public support. It cannot simply force its will on the nation, especially one still aroused by the spirit of revolution. Morsi can hardly take on urgent tasks, such as the cutting of wasteful fuel subsidies and the reformation of a corrupt interior ministry and police force, when much of the country is against him and ready to take to the streets at the least provocation.
Under Morsi’s rule, Egyptian society has become polarized between Islamists and non-Islamists. Enraging the political opposition late last year, he railroaded through a new constitution that contains inadequate protections for the rights of women and non-Muslims and leaves open the possibility of Islamic clerical oversight of legislation. Ignoring protests about the flawed process by which the constitution was drafted and passed, Morsi is moving ahead to legislative elections based on an electoral law to which the opposition objects. Meanwhile, his government has cracked down on journalists, brought spurious charges against opposition leaders and limited the right to public protests. It is considering legislation that would constrain the activities of non-governmental organizations even more than Hosni Mubarak did.
The increasingly desperate secular opposition parties have formed a “National Salvation Front,” but under the surface they are divided between those who want to force Morsi to compromise and those who want to force him from power. Even though most favor the economic reforms necessary to get an IMF loan, many feel they must mobilize street protests against any Morsi action.
The result is that, with Egypt at the edge of bankruptcy — it has enough reserves to pay for only three more months of food and fuel imports — the government and the opposition are locked in a game of chicken. The economy is sinking, political conflict is rising and the security situation is deteriorating.
Washington’s response to this crisis has largely been business as usual. Just as the United States once clung to Mubarak, the Obama administration has hewed closely to Morsi, offering a visit to Washington and continuing to deliver the annual $1.3 billion in military assistance — including a recent shipment of F-16 aircraft. The administration’s response to Morsi’s majoritarian bullying has been muted. Egypt’s opposition and nonpartisan human rights groups believe, understandably, that Washington has resumed ignoring undemocratic practices so long as the Egyptian government protects U.S. strategic interests. Outside of opening new contacts with the ruling Muslim Brotherhood, there has been no fundamental reassessment of U.S. policy toward Egypt since Mubarak’s removal in 2011. Our military and economic aid packages remain the same — except that nearly all democracy and civil-society assistance has been cut off.
It’s time for a new approach. Both the administration and Congress need to fully review military and economic assistance to Egypt. What does the Egyptian army need to bring security to the Sinai? Probably not F-16s. What conditions should Congress place on aid? Previous packages have appropriately been conditioned on progress toward democracy, but the administration has insisted on a national security waiver and has exercised it to provide the aid regardless of Egypt’s behavior. Perhaps Congress should not permit such a waiver in the next aid bill.
As for Morsi’s planned trip to Washington, it would be better to hold that invitation until he demonstrates a sincere commitment to working with all of Egyptian society and allowing genuine freedom to all citizens. That means supporting a law that meets international standards on regulating civil society, allowing watchdog organizations to operate freely and finally resolving the controversial status of foreign and foreign-funded NGOs. It means ending the persecution of journalists and opposition figures, committing to reform the police and hold them accountable, and building a consensus on such critical matters as the constitution and electoral law.
The United States made a strategic error for years by coddling Mubarak, and his refusal to carry out reforms produced the revolution of Tahrir Square. We repeat the error by coddling Morsi at this critical moment. The United States needs to use all its options — military aid, economic aid and U.S. influence with the IMF and other international lenders — to persuade Morsi to compromise with secular politicians and civil-society leaders on political and human rights issues to rebuild security and get the economy on track.
The Walmart Test: Payroll Taxes and the Social Contract. By George Packer.
The Walmart Test: Payroll Taxes and the Social Contract. By George Packer. The New Yorker, February 20, 2013.
Packer:
If you were to write a social history of America through the story of business, what would be the most significant companies in the years since the Second World War? I’d divide the period into two: from 1945 to the mid-seventies, I might name General Motors and Woolworth’s. They set the standard for corporate success and behavior during a period that could be called the Roosevelt Republic, when a social contract underwrote American life. It included an expanding middle class, a strong safety net, high marginal tax rates, a white male establishment that grudgingly made way for other groups, a bipartisan approach to legislation in Washington, and a business culture that was cautious, loyal, hierarchical, and unimaginative.
In the decades since the mid-seventies—you could call it the Reagan Republic, but I prefer the “Unwinding”—the social contract has frayed to the point of disintegration. The middle class has shrunk; tax rates (especially on upper brackets) have plunged; inequality has exploded; the safety net (especially for the poor) has weakened; the old power structure has given way to a more diverse and broad-based upper class based on education; bipartisanship—well, you know; and business culture has become entrepreneurial, fast, risk-taking, and harsh. The trade-off: more freedom, less security.
The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline. By George Packer. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2011.
Packer:
If you were to write a social history of America through the story of business, what would be the most significant companies in the years since the Second World War? I’d divide the period into two: from 1945 to the mid-seventies, I might name General Motors and Woolworth’s. They set the standard for corporate success and behavior during a period that could be called the Roosevelt Republic, when a social contract underwrote American life. It included an expanding middle class, a strong safety net, high marginal tax rates, a white male establishment that grudgingly made way for other groups, a bipartisan approach to legislation in Washington, and a business culture that was cautious, loyal, hierarchical, and unimaginative.
In the decades since the mid-seventies—you could call it the Reagan Republic, but I prefer the “Unwinding”—the social contract has frayed to the point of disintegration. The middle class has shrunk; tax rates (especially on upper brackets) have plunged; inequality has exploded; the safety net (especially for the poor) has weakened; the old power structure has given way to a more diverse and broad-based upper class based on education; bipartisanship—well, you know; and business culture has become entrepreneurial, fast, risk-taking, and harsh. The trade-off: more freedom, less security.
The Broken Contract: Inequality and American Decline. By George Packer. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2011.
Gilded Class Warriors. By Victor Davis Hanson.
Gilded Class Warriors. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, February 21, 2013.
Brave New World. By Victor Davis Hanson. Works and Days. PJ Media, February 19, 2013.
Hanson, Brave New World:
Them and Us
I think it was around 2009 when an entire new vocabulary entered the American popular lexicon. Where did the 1% versus the 99% come from? From where did the new financial Mason-Dixon line arise — good below $250,000 in annual family income, very bad above it? When did the 47% — or is it the 50%? — pay no federal income taxes?
At some magical point, the rich became not the successful, the skilled, the well-inherited, the lucky, or the hardworking, but “them”: the suspect, the damned even, even as the lifestyles of the rich and famous became ever more sought after.
There are not just the rich and poor any more, but now the “good rich” (e.g., athletes, rappers, Hollywood stars, Silicon Valley grandees, Democratic senators, liberal philanthropists, etc.) and the “bad rich” (e.g., oil companies, CEOs, doctors, the Koch brothers, etc.). The correct-thinking nomenklatura and the dutiful apparat versus the kulaks and enemies of the people.
The president in his State of the Union damns the “billionaires with high-powered accountants,” as a friendly Facebook pays no state or federal taxes, as a George Soros walks away with $1.2 billion in speculation profits (in three months, no less!) by betting against the Japanese yen, and as a Jesse Jackson, Jr. gets caught stealing from a campaign fund to buy a $43,000 Rolex (was not a $1,000 one enough?). I thought Soros at his age knew when he had made enough money?
We shrug at all this. A president who thunders to the nation that we must be on guard against the “well-off and well-connected” heads south to Palm Beach to meet his $1,000-an-hour golf pro, while Michelle and the family go west to hit the slopes at “downright mean” Aspen, where no one accepts that they’ve reached a point where they’ve made enough money, or that there was any time when it was not good to profit.
Something strange has insidiously happened to the old notion of hypocrisy. Does it even exist any longer?
Or do we shrug and just accept it as rebranded medieval penance? Obama gets to golf with zillionaires because in soaring cadences he attacks them — and all for us?
Jack Lew takes his $1 million bonus from a federally bailed-out Citigroup and invests his stash in his offshore tax haven in the Caymans because he will be a progressive, raise-your-taxes secretary of Treasury — and because Barack Obama has castigated those who took bonuses from a federally bailed-out money-losing company and derided offshore tax havens in the Caymans?
Chris Hughes is a cutting-edge, gay progressive who buys the New Republic because his Facebook portfolio does pretty well without owing taxes? Is that how it works now?
Have we come to the point where we expect John Kerry’s populist rhetoric to explain why he can feel no pain over dodging taxes on his yacht or marrying into the big money that he used to warn against? John Edwards can lounge around in his ugly mansion precisely because of his “two Americas” choruses?
When did we expect the elite to enjoy their wealth and to rail against its acquisition, to lumber around on four legs in the barn with the animals and strut on two in the kitchen with the overseers? Do Levis and t-shirts mean it’s okay for Google to offshore its profits? Does “Earth in the Balance” mean you can walk away as a guilt-free liberal with $100 million in petro-profits from a sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic sheikdom?
Brave New World. By Victor Davis Hanson. Works and Days. PJ Media, February 19, 2013.
Hanson, Brave New World:
Them and Us
I think it was around 2009 when an entire new vocabulary entered the American popular lexicon. Where did the 1% versus the 99% come from? From where did the new financial Mason-Dixon line arise — good below $250,000 in annual family income, very bad above it? When did the 47% — or is it the 50%? — pay no federal income taxes?
At some magical point, the rich became not the successful, the skilled, the well-inherited, the lucky, or the hardworking, but “them”: the suspect, the damned even, even as the lifestyles of the rich and famous became ever more sought after.
There are not just the rich and poor any more, but now the “good rich” (e.g., athletes, rappers, Hollywood stars, Silicon Valley grandees, Democratic senators, liberal philanthropists, etc.) and the “bad rich” (e.g., oil companies, CEOs, doctors, the Koch brothers, etc.). The correct-thinking nomenklatura and the dutiful apparat versus the kulaks and enemies of the people.
The president in his State of the Union damns the “billionaires with high-powered accountants,” as a friendly Facebook pays no state or federal taxes, as a George Soros walks away with $1.2 billion in speculation profits (in three months, no less!) by betting against the Japanese yen, and as a Jesse Jackson, Jr. gets caught stealing from a campaign fund to buy a $43,000 Rolex (was not a $1,000 one enough?). I thought Soros at his age knew when he had made enough money?
We shrug at all this. A president who thunders to the nation that we must be on guard against the “well-off and well-connected” heads south to Palm Beach to meet his $1,000-an-hour golf pro, while Michelle and the family go west to hit the slopes at “downright mean” Aspen, where no one accepts that they’ve reached a point where they’ve made enough money, or that there was any time when it was not good to profit.
Something strange has insidiously happened to the old notion of hypocrisy. Does it even exist any longer?
Or do we shrug and just accept it as rebranded medieval penance? Obama gets to golf with zillionaires because in soaring cadences he attacks them — and all for us?
Jack Lew takes his $1 million bonus from a federally bailed-out Citigroup and invests his stash in his offshore tax haven in the Caymans because he will be a progressive, raise-your-taxes secretary of Treasury — and because Barack Obama has castigated those who took bonuses from a federally bailed-out money-losing company and derided offshore tax havens in the Caymans?
Chris Hughes is a cutting-edge, gay progressive who buys the New Republic because his Facebook portfolio does pretty well without owing taxes? Is that how it works now?
Have we come to the point where we expect John Kerry’s populist rhetoric to explain why he can feel no pain over dodging taxes on his yacht or marrying into the big money that he used to warn against? John Edwards can lounge around in his ugly mansion precisely because of his “two Americas” choruses?
When did we expect the elite to enjoy their wealth and to rail against its acquisition, to lumber around on four legs in the barn with the animals and strut on two in the kitchen with the overseers? Do Levis and t-shirts mean it’s okay for Google to offshore its profits? Does “Earth in the Balance” mean you can walk away as a guilt-free liberal with $100 million in petro-profits from a sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic sheikdom?
Republicans Shouldn’t Be Too Reasonable. By Jonathan S. Tobin.
Republicans Shouldn’t Be Too Reasonable. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, February 22, 2013.
An Interesting Time to Be Alive (If You’re a Republican). By Peter Wehner. Commentary, February 22, 2013.
In Search of Republican Reformers. By Ross Douthat. New York Times, February 20, 2013.
How to Save the Republican Party. By Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Commentary, March 2013.
An Interesting Time to Be Alive (If You’re a Republican). By Peter Wehner. Commentary, February 22, 2013.
In Search of Republican Reformers. By Ross Douthat. New York Times, February 20, 2013.
How to Save the Republican Party. By Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. Commentary, March 2013.
Upward Mobility. By Fareed Zakaria.
Upward Mobility. By Fareed Zakaria. Time, March 4, 2013.
Zakaria:
America has long been seen—by its citizens and the world—as the place where anyone can make it. And yet studies from the past two decades all point to a different reality. Economic mobility in the U.S. is low compared with what it was in times past and with current levels in many European countries and Canada. It is particularly sticky at the two ends of the economic ladder. Rich people rarely become poor in a generation—and the poorest seldom get rich. Despite the rags-to-riches myth, such stories are the exception. A comprehensive study by the Pew Economic Mobility Project documents that in the U.S. today, few poor people become even upper middle class.
The myth of America’s social mobility. By Fareed Zakaria. Video. Fareed Zakaria GPS. CNN, February 24, 2013.
Pew Economic Mobility Project. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Zakaria:
America has long been seen—by its citizens and the world—as the place where anyone can make it. And yet studies from the past two decades all point to a different reality. Economic mobility in the U.S. is low compared with what it was in times past and with current levels in many European countries and Canada. It is particularly sticky at the two ends of the economic ladder. Rich people rarely become poor in a generation—and the poorest seldom get rich. Despite the rags-to-riches myth, such stories are the exception. A comprehensive study by the Pew Economic Mobility Project documents that in the U.S. today, few poor people become even upper middle class.
The myth of America’s social mobility. By Fareed Zakaria. Video. Fareed Zakaria GPS. CNN, February 24, 2013.
Pew Economic Mobility Project. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
What I Learned About Empire in the West Bank. By Nathan Schneider.
The Hourglass: What I Learned About Empire in the West Bank. By Nathan Schneider. Tikkun, February 14, 2013. Also find it here.
Purim and Esther: Dawn of a New Age. By Mark Kirschbaum.
Torah Commentary – Purim: Eshter – Dawn of a New Age. By Mark Kirschbaum. Tikkun, February 21, 2013. Also find it here.
Peace and Watermelons. By Uri Avnery.
Peace and Watermelons. By Uri Avnery. GushShalom.org, February 23, 2013.
Independent UN Panel Urges Action Amid Ongoing Human Rights Abuses in Syria.
Independent UN panel urges action amid ongoing human rights abuses in Syria conflict. UN News Centre, February 18, 2013.
UN commission of inquiry: all partiesbecoming increasingly reckless with human life as the Syrian conflict drags on. United Nations Human Rights Council, February 18, 2013.
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. A/HRC/22/59. United Nations Human Rights Council, February 5, 2013.
U.N. Rights Officials Urge Syria War Crimes Charges. By Nick Cumming-Bruce. New York Times, February 18, 2013.
Syria: The death of a country. The Economist, February 23, 2013. Also find it here.
The country formerly known as Syria. The Economist, February 23, 2013. Also find it here.
UN panel: Syria civil war increasingly sectarian, radical; weapons supply needs to be curbed. AP. Washington Post, February 18, 2013.
UN commission of inquiry: all partiesbecoming increasingly reckless with human life as the Syrian conflict drags on. United Nations Human Rights Council, February 18, 2013.
Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. A/HRC/22/59. United Nations Human Rights Council, February 5, 2013.
U.N. Rights Officials Urge Syria War Crimes Charges. By Nick Cumming-Bruce. New York Times, February 18, 2013.
Syria: The death of a country. The Economist, February 23, 2013. Also find it here.
The country formerly known as Syria. The Economist, February 23, 2013. Also find it here.
UN panel: Syria civil war increasingly sectarian, radical; weapons supply needs to be curbed. AP. Washington Post, February 18, 2013.
A Syrian
woman carries her injured son, who was shot by the border guards as the pair
crossed a river from Syria to Lebanon. AP.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Weekly Address: Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester. By Barack Obama.
Weekly Address: Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester. By Barack Obama. Video. WhiteHouse.gov, February 23, 2013. Video at YouTube.
Marco Rubio’s State of the Union Response.
Full Text and Video of Marco Rubio’s State of the Union Response. The Daily Beast, February 13, 2013. Video on YouTube.
Deluded Republican Reformers. By Michael Tomasky.
Deluded Republican Reformers. By Michael Tomasky. The Daily Beast, February 23, 2013.
Karl Rove Won’t Stand Up to the Tea Party. Who Will? By David Frum. The Daily Beast, February 8, 2013.
Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence? By Robert Draper. New York Times Magazine, February 17, 2013. Also find it here.
Karl Rove Won’t Stand Up to the Tea Party. Who Will? By David Frum. The Daily Beast, February 8, 2013.
Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence? By Robert Draper. New York Times Magazine, February 17, 2013. Also find it here.
Ph.D. Problems: Wannabe Professors Need Not Apply. By Walter Russell Mead.
PhD Problems: Wannabe Professors Need Not Apply. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, February 23, 2013.
What’s the Use of a PhD? By Megan McArdle. The Daily Beast, February 21, 2013.
The Humanities, Unraveled. By Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. Also find it here.
Mead:
PhD students are in serious trouble, and not only because the job market for professors is shrinking more every day. Over at the Daily Beast Megan McArdle offers some penetrating insights about the attempt of PhD programs to prepare their students for jobs outside academia (called “alt-ac” jobs, alternative to academic):
People with PhDs will have a very hard time getting jobs outside academia, just as they will have a very hard time getting jobs inside academia. For many PhD students, the long years they spent in the program added up, from a career point of view, to a terrible waste of time. MacArdle writes: “I happen to think it’s the most cruel, abusive labor market in America, doing terrible things to bright and idealistic kids who want to be scholars.”
It’s hard not to see her point. PhD programs keep students poor for as much as ten years, taking their time and their money and leaving them with very few prospects on the other end. There are encouraging signs that reform is coming to higher ed. Let’s just hope, for the sake of suffering PhD students, it comes as fast as possible.
What’s the Use of a PhD? By Megan McArdle. The Daily Beast, February 21, 2013.
The Humanities, Unraveled. By Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. Also find it here.
Mead:
PhD students are in serious trouble, and not only because the job market for professors is shrinking more every day. Over at the Daily Beast Megan McArdle offers some penetrating insights about the attempt of PhD programs to prepare their students for jobs outside academia (called “alt-ac” jobs, alternative to academic):
Unfortunately, in many cases a PhD sends a negative rather than a positive signal. Some employers are suspicious of people they figure will be a smartypants pain in the ass with no real skills (I’m not endorsing this view, just reporting it). But a bigger problem is that employers know why people get a PhD in Comp Lit or Religious Studies: so they can be a professor. If you go on the job market with that degree, they know that it’s almost certainly because you failed to get a job as a professor.
What makes things worse is that PhD programs train you in a very narrow range of skills really only suited for academia. PhD students are trained to write, but only as professors write, which doesn’t usually translate well into journalism. They’re trained to teach, but usually in the specialized context of large research universities, so the degree wouldn’t really prepare you to teach at the high school level, nor would it give you much of an edge in the brave new world of MOOCs.Now, most potential employers don’t know about the state of the academic job market: that there were only two jobs even offered in anything close to your specialty last year and one of them went to the son of a famous professor and the other went to the top candidate from Harvard. Many will just think of you as someone who couldn’t cut it in academia.
People with PhDs will have a very hard time getting jobs outside academia, just as they will have a very hard time getting jobs inside academia. For many PhD students, the long years they spent in the program added up, from a career point of view, to a terrible waste of time. MacArdle writes: “I happen to think it’s the most cruel, abusive labor market in America, doing terrible things to bright and idealistic kids who want to be scholars.”
It’s hard not to see her point. PhD programs keep students poor for as much as ten years, taking their time and their money and leaving them with very few prospects on the other end. There are encouraging signs that reform is coming to higher ed. Let’s just hope, for the sake of suffering PhD students, it comes as fast as possible.
Misguided Nostalgia for Our Paleo Past. By Marlene Zuk.
Misguided Nostalgia for Our Paleo Past. By Marlene Zuk. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. Also find it here.
Professors on the Production Line, Students on Their Own. By Mark Bauerlein.
Professors on the Production Line, Students on Their Own. By Mark Bauerlein. American Enterprise Institute Working Paper, January 2009. Also find it here.
Executive Summary:
In higher education in the United States, teaching and research in the fields of language and literature are in a desperate condition. Laboring on the age-old axiom “publish-or-perish,” thousands of professors, lecturers, and graduate students are busy producing dissertations, books, essays, and reviews. Over the past five decades, their collective productivity has risen from 13,000 to 72,000 publications per year. But the audience for language and literature scholarship has diminished, with unit sales for books now hovering around 300.
At the same time, the relations between teachers and students have declined. While 43 percent of two-year public college students and 29 percent of four-year public college students require remedial coursework, costing $2 billion annually, one national survey reports that 37 percent of first-year arts/humanities students “never” discuss course readings with teachers outside of class, and 41 percent only do so “sometimes.”
These trends are not unrelated. Academic engagement on the part of students is a reflection of how much teachers demand it. But with the research mandate hovering over them, teachers have no incentive to push it. If the system favors publication, not mentoring, hours in the office in conversation with sophomores are counter-productive or even damaging to career and livelihood.
Universities need to reconsider the relative value placed on research and teaching in the evaluation of professors. This paper offers several recommendations, including limiting the amount of material that tenure committees will review and creating a “teacher track” in which doctoral students are trained and rewarded for generalist knowledge and multiple course facility rather than a highly-specialized expertise.
Diminishing Returns in Humanities Research. By Mark Bauerlein. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 20, 2009.
Research As Self-Branding. By Mark Bauerlein. Minding the Campus, July 24, 2007.
Are the Kids All Right? By Christy Hall Robinson. The American, January 27, 2009. Review of The Dumbest Generation, by Mark Bauerlein.
Unread Monographs, Uninspired Undergrads. By Elizabeth Redden. Inside Higher Ed, March 18, 2009.
Mark Bauerlein asks the “so what”question. By Alex Reid. alex-reid.net, March 2009.
Grad School scrutinized. By David Burt. Yale Daily News, September 21, 2011.
The Humanities, Unraveled. By Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. Also find it here.
Graduate Education Is Losing Its Moral Base. By Cary Nelson and Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 1994.
The Tribes That Hire the PhDs. By Daniel B. Klein. Minding the Campus, February 10, 2013.
Superpowers: The American Academic Elite. By Robert Oprisko. The Georgetown Public Policy Review, December 3, 2012.
Academic Superpowers. By Scott Jaschik. Inside Higher Ed, December 5, 2012.
Prestige School Dominate Academic Placement. By James Joyner. Outside the Beltway, December 5, 2012.
Executive Summary:
In higher education in the United States, teaching and research in the fields of language and literature are in a desperate condition. Laboring on the age-old axiom “publish-or-perish,” thousands of professors, lecturers, and graduate students are busy producing dissertations, books, essays, and reviews. Over the past five decades, their collective productivity has risen from 13,000 to 72,000 publications per year. But the audience for language and literature scholarship has diminished, with unit sales for books now hovering around 300.
At the same time, the relations between teachers and students have declined. While 43 percent of two-year public college students and 29 percent of four-year public college students require remedial coursework, costing $2 billion annually, one national survey reports that 37 percent of first-year arts/humanities students “never” discuss course readings with teachers outside of class, and 41 percent only do so “sometimes.”
These trends are not unrelated. Academic engagement on the part of students is a reflection of how much teachers demand it. But with the research mandate hovering over them, teachers have no incentive to push it. If the system favors publication, not mentoring, hours in the office in conversation with sophomores are counter-productive or even damaging to career and livelihood.
Universities need to reconsider the relative value placed on research and teaching in the evaluation of professors. This paper offers several recommendations, including limiting the amount of material that tenure committees will review and creating a “teacher track” in which doctoral students are trained and rewarded for generalist knowledge and multiple course facility rather than a highly-specialized expertise.
Diminishing Returns in Humanities Research. By Mark Bauerlein. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 20, 2009.
Research As Self-Branding. By Mark Bauerlein. Minding the Campus, July 24, 2007.
Are the Kids All Right? By Christy Hall Robinson. The American, January 27, 2009. Review of The Dumbest Generation, by Mark Bauerlein.
Unread Monographs, Uninspired Undergrads. By Elizabeth Redden. Inside Higher Ed, March 18, 2009.
Mark Bauerlein asks the “so what”question. By Alex Reid. alex-reid.net, March 2009.
Grad School scrutinized. By David Burt. Yale Daily News, September 21, 2011.
The Humanities, Unraveled. By Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 2013. Also find it here.
Graduate Education Is Losing Its Moral Base. By Cary Nelson and Michael Bérubé. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 1994.
The Tribes That Hire the PhDs. By Daniel B. Klein. Minding the Campus, February 10, 2013.
Superpowers: The American Academic Elite. By Robert Oprisko. The Georgetown Public Policy Review, December 3, 2012.
Academic Superpowers. By Scott Jaschik. Inside Higher Ed, December 5, 2012.
Prestige School Dominate Academic Placement. By James Joyner. Outside the Beltway, December 5, 2012.
How Wars Start. By Robert Kaplan.
How Wars Start. By Robert Kaplan. Real Clear World, February 21, 2013.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Egypt’s Liberals Have a Weak Hand – and They Know It. By Walter Russell Mead.
Egypt’s Liberals Have a Weak Hand – and They Know It. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, February 22, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Mead:
When an opposition thinks it can win an election, it normally demands early ones. That opponents of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood are angry about the prospect of an election just a few weeks from now tells us exactly what they think about their popularity in Egypt.
Many things are happening in Egypt, not least of which is a general economic meltdown that threatens to wreck all plans for parliamentary governance. But one of the key factors shaping the country right now is a disconnect between Egypt’s elite and its ordinary citizens. The country’s relatively sophisticated, cosmopolitan, urban, upper middle class wants modern, democratic government, but the majority of Egyptians are not part of this class and have different priorities. Historically this was the situation in France in 1848, and we see it today in places like Thailand. The name “Napoleon” alone won French rural support for Louis-Napoleon; in Egypt the label “Islam” is good enough for many voters.
It’s difficult if not impossible to resolve this kind of division without some kind of authoritarian rule. Either the urban middle class imposes its agenda on the countryside or vice versa. It’s not clear yet which will happen in Egypt, but the opposition’s panicky reaction to new elections does not speak well of their prospects.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Mead:
When an opposition thinks it can win an election, it normally demands early ones. That opponents of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood are angry about the prospect of an election just a few weeks from now tells us exactly what they think about their popularity in Egypt.
Many things are happening in Egypt, not least of which is a general economic meltdown that threatens to wreck all plans for parliamentary governance. But one of the key factors shaping the country right now is a disconnect between Egypt’s elite and its ordinary citizens. The country’s relatively sophisticated, cosmopolitan, urban, upper middle class wants modern, democratic government, but the majority of Egyptians are not part of this class and have different priorities. Historically this was the situation in France in 1848, and we see it today in places like Thailand. The name “Napoleon” alone won French rural support for Louis-Napoleon; in Egypt the label “Islam” is good enough for many voters.
It’s difficult if not impossible to resolve this kind of division without some kind of authoritarian rule. Either the urban middle class imposes its agenda on the countryside or vice versa. It’s not clear yet which will happen in Egypt, but the opposition’s panicky reaction to new elections does not speak well of their prospects.
Obama’s Bad Brotherhood Bet. By Jonathan S. Tobin.
Obama’s Bad Brotherhood Bet. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, February 21, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Tobin:
For the last few months, conservative critics of the Obama administration’s foreign policy have obsessed about its failure in Libya. The fiasco in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans including our ambassador deserved more media scrutiny and Republicans are right to continue to demand answers about it. But the unfolding disaster next door in Egypt is a far greater indication of the way the president has blundered abroad than even that tragic episode. Obama’s decision to force the Egyptian military to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo and Washington’s subsequent embrace of Mohamed Morsi’s regime has materially aided the descent of the most populous Arab country into the grip of an Islamist party. The Brotherhood regime is determined to extinguish any hope of liberalization in Egypt and its drive to seize total power there is a direct threat to regional stability and Middle East peace.
Rather than using the leverage that the more than $1 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt gives it, the administration has loyally stuck to Morsi despite his seizing of powers that are comparable to those of deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak and his efforts to violently repress the widespread dissatisfaction with his government. There is no sign that anyone in the State Department or the White House realizes that the U.S. bet on the Brotherhood is a disaster, but yesterday’s column by one of the leading peddlers of conventional wisdom on foreign policy ought to concern Morsi. If the Islamists have lost Thomas Friedman, then there is at least a little hope that their campaign to swindle American liberals into backing them is going to eventually crash.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Friedman did something we haven’t seen much of in that newspaper: tell the truth about the Brotherhood’s intentions and its ideological drive to transform Egypt. While the paper’s news pages and fellow columnists like Nicholas Kristof have bought into the baloney the Brotherhood has served up to foreign journalists about their moderation and desire for democracy and progress, Friedman made it clear that their tyrannical impulse is no aberration. Even more important, he made it clear that the Obama administration’s apparent belief that they can reinvent the modus vivendi that formally existed between the U.S. and Mubarak with Morsi is a terrible mistake.
As Friedman notes, the Brotherhood has prioritized the cleansing of non-Islamist aspects of Egyptian culture over its supposed hope to reboot the economy. The banning of the Belly Dancing Channel on Egyptian TV made for a comic lede for Friedman’s column, but it is no joke, as it illustrates Morsi’s desire to turn a multi-faceted society into another Iran.
Yet as right as Friedman is about the current situation, his advice about the Brotherhood having to change or fail misses the point about a movement that has no intention of ever allowing power to slip from its hands. Friedman is right that the Brotherhood’s version of political Islam will sink Egypt into poverty. The problem is that they are no more willing or capable of becoming more democratic or open-minded about non-Islamist culture than they are of ever accepting peace with Israel.
Friedman praises what he claims is an Obama administration decision to convey their concerns about the direction of Egypt privately rather than publicly. He also supports an apparent decision to invite Morsi to Washington for a visit where he can try to charm the U.S. into keeping the flow of American taxpayer dollars into his government’s coffers.
But the more time the U.S. takes in conveying the message that it will not back an Egyptian government intent on an Islamist kulturkampf, the less chance there will be that it can influence events in Cairo. We already know what a bad bet Obama has made in backing Morsi and the Brotherhood. It may already be too late to reverse the damage that was done by the president’s feckless embrace of the Islamists. If, as Friedman acknowledges, the direction the Brotherhood is taking Egypt, and by extension the region, is one that can lead to chaos, tyranny and violence, an American decision to cut Morsi off can’t come too soon.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Tobin:
For the last few months, conservative critics of the Obama administration’s foreign policy have obsessed about its failure in Libya. The fiasco in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans including our ambassador deserved more media scrutiny and Republicans are right to continue to demand answers about it. But the unfolding disaster next door in Egypt is a far greater indication of the way the president has blundered abroad than even that tragic episode. Obama’s decision to force the Egyptian military to accept a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo and Washington’s subsequent embrace of Mohamed Morsi’s regime has materially aided the descent of the most populous Arab country into the grip of an Islamist party. The Brotherhood regime is determined to extinguish any hope of liberalization in Egypt and its drive to seize total power there is a direct threat to regional stability and Middle East peace.
Rather than using the leverage that the more than $1 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt gives it, the administration has loyally stuck to Morsi despite his seizing of powers that are comparable to those of deposed dictator Hosni Mubarak and his efforts to violently repress the widespread dissatisfaction with his government. There is no sign that anyone in the State Department or the White House realizes that the U.S. bet on the Brotherhood is a disaster, but yesterday’s column by one of the leading peddlers of conventional wisdom on foreign policy ought to concern Morsi. If the Islamists have lost Thomas Friedman, then there is at least a little hope that their campaign to swindle American liberals into backing them is going to eventually crash.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Friedman did something we haven’t seen much of in that newspaper: tell the truth about the Brotherhood’s intentions and its ideological drive to transform Egypt. While the paper’s news pages and fellow columnists like Nicholas Kristof have bought into the baloney the Brotherhood has served up to foreign journalists about their moderation and desire for democracy and progress, Friedman made it clear that their tyrannical impulse is no aberration. Even more important, he made it clear that the Obama administration’s apparent belief that they can reinvent the modus vivendi that formally existed between the U.S. and Mubarak with Morsi is a terrible mistake.
As Friedman notes, the Brotherhood has prioritized the cleansing of non-Islamist aspects of Egyptian culture over its supposed hope to reboot the economy. The banning of the Belly Dancing Channel on Egyptian TV made for a comic lede for Friedman’s column, but it is no joke, as it illustrates Morsi’s desire to turn a multi-faceted society into another Iran.
Yet as right as Friedman is about the current situation, his advice about the Brotherhood having to change or fail misses the point about a movement that has no intention of ever allowing power to slip from its hands. Friedman is right that the Brotherhood’s version of political Islam will sink Egypt into poverty. The problem is that they are no more willing or capable of becoming more democratic or open-minded about non-Islamist culture than they are of ever accepting peace with Israel.
Friedman praises what he claims is an Obama administration decision to convey their concerns about the direction of Egypt privately rather than publicly. He also supports an apparent decision to invite Morsi to Washington for a visit where he can try to charm the U.S. into keeping the flow of American taxpayer dollars into his government’s coffers.
But the more time the U.S. takes in conveying the message that it will not back an Egyptian government intent on an Islamist kulturkampf, the less chance there will be that it can influence events in Cairo. We already know what a bad bet Obama has made in backing Morsi and the Brotherhood. It may already be too late to reverse the damage that was done by the president’s feckless embrace of the Islamists. If, as Friedman acknowledges, the direction the Brotherhood is taking Egypt, and by extension the region, is one that can lead to chaos, tyranny and violence, an American decision to cut Morsi off can’t come too soon.
The Regime’s Sensitivity Training. By Rush Limbaugh.
The Regime’s Sensitivity Training. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, February 22, 2013.
Obama: Republicans’ Refusal to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy Is What “Binds Their Party Together.”
Obama: Republicans’ Refusal to Raise Taxes on the Wealthy Is What “Binds Their Party Together.” By Susan Jones. CNSNews.com, February 22, 2013. Video here.
Obama To Al Sharpton: View That “Nothing Is Important Enough” To Raise Taxes Is What “Binds” GOP. By Meenal Vamburkar. Mediaite, February 22, 2013. With complete audio.
Obama on Al Sharpton: It’s hard for Republicans to see the obvious answer. By Michal Conger. Washington Examiner, February 21, 2013.
Obama: Cuts that Hurt the Economy are GOP’s Raison D’etre. By John Sexton. Breitbart, February 21, 2013. Audio at YouTube.
Obama: Helping Rich “Thing That Binds” GOP Together. Washington Free Beacon, February 21, 2013.
Obama: Helping Rich “The Thing That Binds”Republicans Together. Real Clear Politics, February 21, 2013.
And Another Thing About Obama’s Appearance Al Sharpton’s radio show! By Debra Heine. Breitbart, February 22, 2013.
Mark Levin blasts Obama for smearing American people, and GOP for throwing in with Obama. The Right Scoop, February 21, 2013.
Obama on Republicans:
My sense is that their basic view is nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations. And they would prefer to see these kinds of cuts that could slow down our recovery over closing tax loopholes, and that’s the thing that binds their party together at this point.
Heine:
This is our president talking about us – all Republicans. We only care about the rich. We are motivated only by a selfish, base desire to protect ourselves from paying our “fair share,” “millionaires and billionaires” that we all are. Our selfishness is what binds us together.
It couldn’t be that we think more taxes would kill jobs and slow down the economy – it couldn’t be that we believe we have a serious debt problem and spending has to be reduced to prevent a financial meltdown.
My God.
We’ve gotten so used to being demonized in this way, we’re numb to it – it barely causes raised eyebrows anymore. But I still remember how shocking it was in 2009 to see the President of the United States behaving like a rabble-rousing community organizer – writ large – gleefully pitting Americans against each other.
It took this epic rant from Mark Levin to make me notice that, yeah, Obama was attacking us, again, and wow – how galling of him to use this class warfare argument in light of the fact that he and Michelle are the ones constantly running off to West Palm Beach, Hawaii, Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard, etc.
Where’s the Republican leadership? Why do they let him get away with that? Marco Rubio touched on Obama's tendency to impugn the motives of his adversaries in his response to the SOTU. That was for me, the best part of his speech because it was a stake in the heart of Obama’s favorite Alinsky tactic. No wonder all libs wanted to talk about afterward was Rubio’s drink of water.
Republicans need to be calling Obama out on that every time he does it, and honestly explaining to the American people the dire straits we’re in, instead of cowering in fear and worrying about who gets the blame.
Obama To Al Sharpton: View That “Nothing Is Important Enough” To Raise Taxes Is What “Binds” GOP. By Meenal Vamburkar. Mediaite, February 22, 2013. With complete audio.
Obama on Al Sharpton: It’s hard for Republicans to see the obvious answer. By Michal Conger. Washington Examiner, February 21, 2013.
Obama: Cuts that Hurt the Economy are GOP’s Raison D’etre. By John Sexton. Breitbart, February 21, 2013. Audio at YouTube.
Obama: Helping Rich “Thing That Binds” GOP Together. Washington Free Beacon, February 21, 2013.
Obama: Helping Rich “The Thing That Binds”Republicans Together. Real Clear Politics, February 21, 2013.
And Another Thing About Obama’s Appearance Al Sharpton’s radio show! By Debra Heine. Breitbart, February 22, 2013.
Mark Levin blasts Obama for smearing American people, and GOP for throwing in with Obama. The Right Scoop, February 21, 2013.
Obama on Republicans:
My sense is that their basic view is nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations. And they would prefer to see these kinds of cuts that could slow down our recovery over closing tax loopholes, and that’s the thing that binds their party together at this point.
Heine:
This is our president talking about us – all Republicans. We only care about the rich. We are motivated only by a selfish, base desire to protect ourselves from paying our “fair share,” “millionaires and billionaires” that we all are. Our selfishness is what binds us together.
It couldn’t be that we think more taxes would kill jobs and slow down the economy – it couldn’t be that we believe we have a serious debt problem and spending has to be reduced to prevent a financial meltdown.
My God.
We’ve gotten so used to being demonized in this way, we’re numb to it – it barely causes raised eyebrows anymore. But I still remember how shocking it was in 2009 to see the President of the United States behaving like a rabble-rousing community organizer – writ large – gleefully pitting Americans against each other.
It took this epic rant from Mark Levin to make me notice that, yeah, Obama was attacking us, again, and wow – how galling of him to use this class warfare argument in light of the fact that he and Michelle are the ones constantly running off to West Palm Beach, Hawaii, Aspen, Martha’s Vineyard, etc.
Where’s the Republican leadership? Why do they let him get away with that? Marco Rubio touched on Obama's tendency to impugn the motives of his adversaries in his response to the SOTU. That was for me, the best part of his speech because it was a stake in the heart of Obama’s favorite Alinsky tactic. No wonder all libs wanted to talk about afterward was Rubio’s drink of water.
Republicans need to be calling Obama out on that every time he does it, and honestly explaining to the American people the dire straits we’re in, instead of cowering in fear and worrying about who gets the blame.
Egypt and Tunisia: New Leaders, Same Brutality. By Erin Cunningham.
New leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, same security forces. By Erin Cunningham, Global Post, February 21, 2013.
China’s “Leftover Women,” Unmarried at 27. By Mary Kay Magistad.
China’s “leftover women,” unmarried at 27. By Mary Kay Magistad. BBC News Magazine, February 20, 2013. Also at PRI.org.
Sheng nu (leftover women). Wikipedia.
Elite Single Chinese Face “Leftover Lady” Discount. By Jia You. WeNews, September 11, 2011.
For China’s Educated Single Ladies, Finding Love Is Often a Struggle. By Sushma Subramanian and Deborah Jian Lee. The Atlantic, October 19, 2011. Also at Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
China’s “Leftover” Women. By Leta Hong Fincher. New York Times, October 11, 2012.
China’s “leftover women” choosing to stay single. By Leta Hong Fincher. CNN, August 21, 2013.
Letter to Parents Worried About Their Daughter Becoming a “Leftover Woman.” By Joy Chen. The Huffington Post, March 4, 2013. Also at Global Rencai.
China’s “Leftover Women” Desperate to Find Mr. Right. By Susan Donaldson James. ABC News, July 11, 2013.
China’s shengnu, or “leftover women,” face intense pressure to marry. By Julie Makinen and Don Lee. Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2013.
A good man is hard to find: China's “leftover women” look for love abroad. By Isobel Yeung. South China Morning Post Magazine, April 27, 2014.
Over 27? Unmarried? Female? You’d be on the scrapheap in China. By Marta Cooper. The Telegraph, April 30, 2014.
If Asian Women Hit on White Dudes the Way White Dudes Hit on Asian Women. By Alanna Vagianos. The Huffington Post, November 11, 2014.
“Yellow fever” fetish: Why do so many white men want to date a Chinese woman? By Yuan Ren. The Telegraph, July 1, 2014.
Yellow Fever: Dating as an Asian Woman. By Lauren sMash. Persephone Magazine, January 26, 2012. Also at Everyday Feminism.
The Startling Plight of China’s Leftover Ladies. By Christina Larson. Foreign Policy, May/June 2012.
Author Joy Chen on marriage, work and life. Video. chinadailyus, December 11, 2012. YouTube. Also at YouKu.
Sheng nu (leftover women). Wikipedia.
Elite Single Chinese Face “Leftover Lady” Discount. By Jia You. WeNews, September 11, 2011.
For China’s Educated Single Ladies, Finding Love Is Often a Struggle. By Sushma Subramanian and Deborah Jian Lee. The Atlantic, October 19, 2011. Also at Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
China’s “Leftover” Women. By Leta Hong Fincher. New York Times, October 11, 2012.
China’s “leftover women” choosing to stay single. By Leta Hong Fincher. CNN, August 21, 2013.
Letter to Parents Worried About Their Daughter Becoming a “Leftover Woman.” By Joy Chen. The Huffington Post, March 4, 2013. Also at Global Rencai.
China’s “Leftover Women” Desperate to Find Mr. Right. By Susan Donaldson James. ABC News, July 11, 2013.
China’s shengnu, or “leftover women,” face intense pressure to marry. By Julie Makinen and Don Lee. Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2013.
A good man is hard to find: China's “leftover women” look for love abroad. By Isobel Yeung. South China Morning Post Magazine, April 27, 2014.
Over 27? Unmarried? Female? You’d be on the scrapheap in China. By Marta Cooper. The Telegraph, April 30, 2014.
If Asian Women Hit on White Dudes the Way White Dudes Hit on Asian Women. By Alanna Vagianos. The Huffington Post, November 11, 2014.
“Yellow fever” fetish: Why do so many white men want to date a Chinese woman? By Yuan Ren. The Telegraph, July 1, 2014.
Yellow Fever: Dating as an Asian Woman. By Lauren sMash. Persephone Magazine, January 26, 2012. Also at Everyday Feminism.
The Startling Plight of China’s Leftover Ladies. By Christina Larson. Foreign Policy, May/June 2012.
Who are
you calling “leftover?” Huang Yuanyuan (front) and her colleague Wang Tingting.
Author Joy Chen on marriage, work and life. Video. chinadailyus, December 11, 2012. YouTube. Also at YouKu.
Plight of young “leftover women” in China. By Chip Reid. Video and transcript. CBS This Morning. CBS News, June 28, 2012. YouTube.
National Rifle Association Ad: Stand and Fight, “We Are America” Video.
National Rifle Association Ad: Stand and Fight, “We are America” Video. The Daily Caller, February 20, 2013.
Who’s winning the message war over gun control? Video. America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News, February 22, 2013.
NRA Stand and Fight: We Are America. NRA Videos, February 20, 2013. YouTube.
A sharp, visually powerful statement of the Jacksonian concept of liberty.
NRA:
In a recent closed-door speech to donors, politicians and media, Bill Clinton spoke about American gun owners:
“A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing.”
“Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.”
And we all remember Barack Obama’s 2008 comments to a room of San Francisco elites:
“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.”
The arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder:
They don’t rule us.
They don’t give us rights. We grant them power.
They don’t make us safe. We pay to protect them.
They don’t make us free. We’re free already.
And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be.
We are America and our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people allow them to be.
NRA STAND AND FIGHT
Who’s winning the message war over gun control? Video. America Live with Megyn Kelly. Fox News, February 22, 2013.
NRA Stand and Fight: We Are America. NRA Videos, February 20, 2013. YouTube.
A sharp, visually powerful statement of the Jacksonian concept of liberty.
NRA:
In a recent closed-door speech to donors, politicians and media, Bill Clinton spoke about American gun owners:
“A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing.”
“Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.”
And we all remember Barack Obama’s 2008 comments to a room of San Francisco elites:
“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.”
The arrogance of their superiority requires this reminder:
They don’t rule us.
They don’t give us rights. We grant them power.
They don’t make us safe. We pay to protect them.
They don’t make us free. We’re free already.
And as long as we have the Second Amendment, we always will be.
We are America and our politicians are only as powerful as we, the people allow them to be.
NRA STAND AND FIGHT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)