Someone failed to quit the McCain campaign yesterday. 6:30 P.M.
Karen Hicks must be some kind of "field operative." She's getting paid $66,000 a quarter from Hillary's campaign, according to Politico's Ben Smith. That's a rate of $266,000 a year. ... P.S.: But she's no Laurel Touby. ... 1:42 P.M.
Childstats.gov Buries the Lede: The rate of teenage childbearing for blacks has been cut by more than half since its peak in 1991. It's now substantially lower than the teen birthrate for Hispanics. Though I'd like to credit welfare reform, causality here is complicated--new birth control technologies (e.g. Norplant) and fear of AIDS are big potential factors. And nationwide welfare reform didn't happen until 1996. ...
If you want to find evidence of a sociological impact for welfare reform, look at this chart. It shows that the percentage of black children living with two married parents jumped from 33 percent in 1996 to 38 percent in 2002 (when the Census changed the definition of "black"). Meanwhile, the percentage of black children living with "mother only" fell from 53 percent to 48 percent. ... Those figures still aren't very promising--the percentage of white children living with two married parents is 76 (and for Hispanics it's 66). Still, the improvement for blacks is significant. Why isn't welfare reform to blame? If a single mother is going to have to work, it makes sense to team up with another breadwinner. ...
P.P.S.: If greater condom use is (as the AP suggests) a big explanation for the decline in black teen births, doesn't this mean that the unavailability of condoms (or lack of education in their use, etc.) is no longer even a remotely plausible explanation for the still-low percentage of black two parent families? Obviously, the problem isn't lack of access to birth control technology--black teens are using it. Presumably they don't forget about it when they become young adults. .. 2:53 A.M.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
It's telling that Zuckerman only seems interesting in the pages of the New York Post, which has a vested interest in making its rival look bad.
1:53 A.M. link
Monday, July 16, 2007
Is CNN blowing it? Next Monday, CNN will hold the first of two "CNN/YouTube" debates. It "will feature video questions submitted to YouTube which will be broadcast and answered" by the Democratic candidates for president.
"YouTube enables voters and candidates to communicate in a way that simply was not possible during the last election," said Chad Hurley, CEO and co-founder of YouTube. ...
"These debates take the bold step of embracing the ever-increasing role of the Internet in politics," Jim Walton, CNN Worldwide president.
Yeah, yeah. But the CNN debate, as currently planned, completely misses what's so innovative and subversive about YouTube--namely the ability of average citizens to put political messages before millions of potential voters without the approval of MSM gatekeepers. Who decided that "Obama Girl" would be a huge hit? Nobody. Or, rather, the cumulative decisions of hundreds of thousands of You Tube users. The choice was largely out of the hands of those who traditionally decide what voters get to hear about candidates: editors of daily newspapers, producers of nightly newscasts, professional campaign consultants. The phenomenon rightly alarms the consultants, at least, who now have to worry that a popular amateur video could rise up and bite them at any moment. (See Edwards, John, "Feeling Pretty.") It's all too ... uncontrolled.