Kids living with their parents well into their twenties is an old story. But with a worsening U.S. economy and possible recession comes a bizarre twist, according to the Associated Press: "Kids" in their thirties, forties and even fifties are moving back home with their parents, the victims of a harsh economic climate.
So, if family members are helping each other out in times of financial stress isn't this a good thing? Is the AP against family members being there for each other in times of need, are they trying to say that families helping each other out is somehow a bad thing? Or is it that the AP would prefer the government to do all the "helping"?
In the final analysis, this story offers no proof of the claims made at all. But it does do one thing very well and that is the only purpose for this story. It gives an uninformed, unquestioning reader the distinct feeling that everything in America is bad today. And all this during a presidential election where news of a bad economy will help Democrats, too.
Imagine that.
Back in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, three factors helped facilitate the transition to adulthood. First, there were jobs that provided good wages even for high school graduates. A college degree wasn't necessary to earn a decent living. And if you wanted to go, college was far more affordable. The second was an economy that lifted all boats, with productivity gains shared by workers and executives alike. The result was a massive growth of the middle class, which provided security and stability for families. Third, a range of public policies helped facilitate this economic mobility and opportunity: a strong minimum wage, grants for low-income students to go to college, generously subsidized state college tuition, a reliable unemployment insurance system, enforcement of the right to join a union, major incentives for homeownership, and a solid safety net for those falling on hard times.
This world no longer exists.
Sara Jane Olson
California authorities re-arrested Sara Jane Olson over the weekend, saying her release on parole was a clerical error. Outrage had greeted the release of Olson, a former member of the radical Symbionese Liberation Army who had served six years for her role in a 1975 plot to kill Los Angeles police officers by blowing up their patrol cars. Why are the cultural battles of the Baby Boomers youth still so resonant? When will we get to leave them behind?
Sara Jane Olson's real name was Kathleen Soliah. (She subsequently changed her name to Sara Jane Olson.) In St. Paul she had built a life as a fashionable left-wing activist with a physician husband and two daughters who attended the neighborhood school a block from where we lived.
Soliah had many local friends and acquaintances who stepped forward to speak up for her. They immediately produced an outpouring of support. Many of her friends were prominent Twin Cities Democrats. Among her local supporters, for example, was current Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison, though in Ellison's case Soliah was only one of a long line of killers whose cause he championed. In February 2000 Ellison spoke at a fundraiser on behalf of Soliah and demanded Soliah's freedom.
John and I were struck by the depth and breadth of the local support for Soliah as well as by its sickness.
Some conservatives have sought to use cases like Ms. Olson's to attack not just the actions of individuals but the legacy of the 1960's. Todd Gitlin said he worried that a case involving a radical group that he called ''a farcical footnote to a footnote, a cartoon,'' might be used as a lance to spear all the offspring of the 60's -- which include everything from civil rights to the environmental movement -- as though the whole era had been a quixotic misadventure. ''This will turn out to have been very bad political theater if it just provides some clownish grist for people who have harbored this grudge against the 60's,'' he said. ''Nobody needs to rescue those days, but nobody needs to sabotage them either.''
John McCain in Jordan.
John McCain’s trip abroad last week — which took him from the Middle East to London and Paris — was more than just a congressional fact-finding trip, or even a candidate’s attempt to appear statesmanlike. It was also an audition on the world stage for McCain in his new role as the Republican presidential nominee.
McCain's robust attitude towards those who would threaten the security of America might have caused some friction among Washington's European allies, but nothing approaching the scale achieved by Messrs. Bush and Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.
It will be eight months before we know whether McCain's second run for the White House has been successful, but he has made it clear that his presidency would be very different in tone and substance from that of Bush.
Apart from adopting a more practical, less ideological approach to the war on terror, McCain has indicated he would be prepared to be more conciliatory on other key international issues, such as the threat posed by global warming. After meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, McCain declared that he was confident "we can reach a global agreement that would include China and India. It's a compelling issue for the world's environment and I am committed to it."
Given how often we are told these days that McCain has "credibility" and "experience" on matters of foreign policy and national security, it's worth asking what effect all that alleged experience has had on him. Because when McCain actually opens his mouth to discuss these issues, his ideas and beliefs often sound so simple-minded they make George W. Bush look like Otto von Bismarck. And the one consistent theme in McCain's thinking is his support for the application of military force as the best way to deal with foreign-policy challenges. Because it's been working out so well for the last five years.
Ready to retreat in the War on Drugs?
Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." "I now think it's time for the politicians to catch up to the public," Frank said. "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I'm going to call it the 'Make Room for Serious Criminals' bill." Should possession of small amounts of pot be decriminalized?
I’m not necessarily opposed to legalization, but even with that, Frank oversells the concept. Most people caught smoking marijuana don’t serve any jail time at all. In most places, it’s not even a serious misdemeanor, and in many jurisdictions it’s more of an infraction. Convictions for personal use usually result in fines and sometimes in compulsory rehab, but it’s been decades since individual users have been jailed for simply smoking a joint.
The big drain on law enforcement resources come from interdicting the larger traffic in marijuana, at the border and in the interior. It doesn’t sound as though Frank will propose that marijuana becomes completely legal, and so it will do very little to “make room for serious criminals.”
Marijuana is far less toxic than heroin, cocaine or even alcohol, and the idea of putting people in jail for possessing it seems absurd. At the same time, marijuana is not innocuous, especially for young people, and we do not want to do anything that would make it even more available than it is now. Legalizing marijuana would certainly risk that. A far more rational approach would be to decriminalize the drug; people caught using pot in public would be subject to a civil penalty punishable by a fine, much as a traffic violation is. The production, importation and sale of marijuana, however, would remain illegal (though not subject to the ridiculously harsh penalties now in place). Decriminalization offers a realistic middle ground between the excesses of our current approach and the potential perils of legalization.
Links to Rocky Mountain News RSS feeds.
