Of Morality And Marshmallows

The Atlantic reports on a new study suggesting that the famous “marshmallow test” is unreliable as a predictor of future economic instability. Excerpt:

In the case of this new study, specifically, the failure to confirm old assumptions pointed to an important truth: that circumstances matter more in shaping children’s lives than Mischel and his colleagues seemed to appreciate.

This new paper found that among kids whose mothers had a college degree, those who waited for a second marshmallow did no better in the long run—in terms of standardized test scores and mothers’ reports of their children’s behavior—than those who dug right in. Similarly, among kids whose mothers did not have college degrees, those who waited did no better than those who gave in to temptation, once other factors like household income and the child’s home environment at age 3 (evaluated according to a standard research measure that notes, for instance, the number of books that researchers observed in the home and how responsive mothers were to their children in the researchers’ presence) were taken into account. For those kids, self-control alone couldn’t overcome economic and social disadvantages.

The failed replication of the marshmallow test does more than just debunk the earlier notion; it suggests other possible explanations for why poorer kids would be less motivated to wait for that second marshmallow. For them, daily life holds fewer guarantees: There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

Maybe so. But might it also be the case that children raised in more affluent homes will have been taught the value of resisting their impulses? I say this because one of my own children has had a very demanding sweet tooth from earliest childhood. He is also impulsive by nature. It has taken years of effort on the part of his mother and me to train him to say no to his impulses — not only for sugar, but, as he has gotten older and started earning spending money, his enthusiasms for buying things that strike his fancy. Many times I have pondered the difficulty he is going to have managing his money if he doesn’t get this impulsiveness under control. He’s a very good kid, highly moral and responsible, but impulsiveness is his Achilles’ heel.

He’s not being raised in poverty. We are middle class people, but culturally I guess that puts us with more in common with the affluent than not. Our impulsive child has been raised in a stable household — materially and emotionally — so there are no environmental factors that nurture his impulsiveness. From an Orthodox Christian point of view, this is simply one of his passions, something he has to struggle against. I have my own particular passions (anger and gluttony). Orthodoxy teaches that life itself is a struggle to crucify the passions and order ones desires towards the will of God. There is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to eat a marshmallow, but if your reason and your will are overcome by that desire to eat a marshmallow, you are weak, and can fall into sin. The regular fasting that Orthodox Christians do is designed to train the will to desire what God desires for us, not what we desire for ourselves.

Anyway, all of that is prelude to what I want to tell you. Last night, I was at a dinner party with some friends. One of them, N., told a long story about a local carpenter she and her husband had hired to do some renovations on their house. I won’t tell the story in depth, because the story is hers to tell, and she’s a writer. The gist of the story is that N. and her husband have been working with this guy for a long time — it’s a big project — and have gotten to know him well. He’s working class, and economically quite precarious. N. said the man has become a friend, and that she and her husband have been working hard to help him stabilize his life.

N. said — again, I’m summing up, but the details are sort of breathtaking — that the carpenter’s personal life is a study in chaos. He cannot grasp that he has the power to determine future events by the choices he makes today. A sense of moral agency totally escapes him. He sees N.’s ordinary family — they have kids — and thinks that they are simply one of fate’s winners. N. talked about the extraordinary lengths she and her husband have gone to befriend and to help this man, but how ultimately it has been futile. No matter what they say to him, no matter what they do for him, he cannot get it together. And he is leaving all kinds of chaos in his wake (several wives, kids, etc.).

I told N. that my wife and I have been in the very same situation, trying to help someone just like that who had become a friend … and in the end, concluding that it was futile. I wrote about it in the past on this blog: how I had gone to my lawyer, offering to pay him to represent this impoverished friend in a particular case. Lawyer said he would take my money and meet with the friend, but that in his lengthy experience with these cases, he could tell me that I’d be wasting my money and his time, because my friend would not follow through. It’s in the nature of people who get themselves into these kinds of situations, he said, to keep doing what got them into that situation in the first place. I told him I would be willing to take that chance to help her.

Next time I saw this friend, I told her to make an appointment with Lawyer X., that he would be willing to advise her, and that I would pay the bill. She thanked me profusely, but said that wouldn’t be necessary that she had decided to … well, that she had decided to keep doing the same stupid thing that got her into this bind in the first place. The country lawyer’s practical experience in dealing with the poor was wiser than my heart-on-the-sleeve idealism. Not for the first time did I feel like a character in a Flannery O’Connor story. (My future epitaph: “Call me Azzberry”.)

At dinner last night, my friend and I dwelled on the intractability of human nature in cases like this. She said that she had to conclude that a stable family life in childhood provides psychological goods that cannot be given through any other way. There aren’t enough government programs, personal charitable efforts, or anything else to compensate adequately for a chaotic childhood. My friend was certainly not saying that we can wash our hands of the responsibility for our neighbor’s welfare, but she was concluding — accurately — that we have to recognize the limits of our ability to change the lives of others. She was also saying that her experience with the carpenter made her more fully aware of how important it is to do everything she can to give her own children a stable home life.

Notice that I’m not saying — nor did I hear her to say — “affluent” home life. My folks never had a lot of money. We were an ordinary working-class to lower-middle-class family. But the gift my mother and father gave me of an orderly, stable childhood was priceless, I now see. How did they do it? They were both imperfect people who endured their share of difficulties in marriage, caused by their own flaws, as well as a period of economic stress. My father is no longer with us to discuss the matter, but the truth is, neither one of them would have been given over to much self-reflection on the question. They were the kind of people who would have simply said, “We made a vow,” and left it at that. For them, that was reason enough to stay together — that, and they always made it clear that the needs of us kids came before their own. That was just how my folks went through life. Not to get too philosophical about it, but for them, that was the Tao.

That wouldn’t have guaranteed stability in my family’s or my late sister’s, but they gave us such a good model of how family was supposed to work. Again, I don’t want to hold my mom and dad out to have been perfect. I don’t think there are any perfect families, and certainly mine had its particular flaws, some of which had unfortunate long-term consequences. That said, I am so very grateful to my parents for holding things together, and showing my sister and me that it is possible to build that kind of life, even when you don’t have much money.

My father was the chief breadwinner in our household, and, because they were a traditional 1950s-era couple, he was the one who dictated how our financial resources would be handled. I find this interesting with relation to the Atlantic article because having grown up very poor in the Great Depression, he ought to have been shaped by the experience of inconstancy in a particular way. Remember, the Atlantic writer said:

There might be food in the pantry today, but there might not be tomorrow, so there is a risk that comes with waiting. And even if their parents promise to buy more of a certain food, sometimes that promise gets broken out of financial necessity.

That’s how my father grew up, but that same experience made him far more likely to do what he could to hedge against chaos. He talked to Ruthie and me a lot about these things, relating him to his childhood. His own father was away from home for most of my dad’s early childhood, entirely because he had to work and send money back to support his wife, children, and elderly mother, who lived in the household. That sense of vulnerability made a profound impression on my dad, who was determined that his children would not feel it, if he could help it.

Daddy wasn’t unique in that. What I can’t quite understand today is why his response to childhood poverty and insecurity was so very different from what is normal today. That is, Daddy’s response was to live as an adult in such a way that he was less vulnerable to that chaos, and in which his own children were made less vulnerable to the chaos that would have come had outside pressures broken the family apart. I’ve written many times in this space about how he had deep compassion for people who were poor and suffering victims of circumstance, but also something bordering on contempt for people who were poor and suffering, but who always blamed others, or fate, for their suffering. He would say, “You can’t do nothin’ for people like that.” This was the opinion of a man who had once been poor, and who had lived his entire life in the same community as poor people, and working with them. Kind of like that country lawyer I mentioned above.

It seems to me that aside from his personal qualities, my father was the beneficiary of a local culture that, for better or for worse, had a strong bias against people living morally disordered lives. I should add that my dad had much more hostility towards middle class and wealthy people who lived that way. “They know better,” he would say. “They don’t have an excuse.” In his case, it wasn’t so much a matter of religion — my dad wasn’t particularly observant — as it was a matter of shame and honor. The culture that shaped my father’s code said it was dishonorable for men and women to live in ways that violated its core moral code. I heard my dad say on a number of occasions, “There’s no shame in being poor,” but he also spoke with stern judgment against men who abandoned their families, people who wouldn’t work, and so forth.

That code could be harsh, but it was more realistic about life than a lot of what passes for wisdom today. I think that has a lot to do with why Jordan Peterson is so popular. He gives to young men a sense of moral agency. Peterson is not Moses coming down from the summit of Sinai, but he talks common sense to a culture that has forgotten it. There has never been a society, and never will be a society, in which somebody can live like a fool and not pay the consequences — and for that matter, inflict consequences on others. You can’t not show up for work and expect to keep your job forever. You can’t ignore your kids and expect that they will grow up to be responsible people. You can’t get loaded every weekend and wonder why your roof is falling in, and won’t fix itself. You can’t allow television and social media to raise your children, and expect that they will be good.  And so forth.

“The world doesn’t owe you a living,” my father would lecture me, usually when I hadn’t done my homework, or failed to do something I was supposed to have done. I suppose this attitude is what made my dad a natural conservative. He couldn’t stand people who were ungrateful and lazy. His basic attitude towards us kids was: I bust my ass to provide for y’all, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you waste the opportunities you’ve been given. There was a time in my life when I thought he was so square, but the older I get, the more I see that there really isn’t any other way to live. My dad was keen to help people who were down on their luck, and I see now that he allowed himself to be taken advantage of by some folks with hard-luck stories. Mostly, though, what he was eager to do was to teach people how to help themselves, and to encourage them to do so. For him, this was a matter of natural justice. A society in which people were rewarded even though they did the wrong thing, or failed to do the right thing, was not a just or good society. And doing the right thing always meant subjugating your own desires to the greater good, especially the greater good of your family.

Here’s a funny thing: a few years back, when I was working with the African-American actor Wendell Pierce on his memoir of growing up in south Louisiana, I spent some time speaking with his Uncle L.C. Edwards, the last surviving member of Wendell’s parents’ generation. Uncle L.C. was the same age as my father, and like him, had grown up in rural poverty. I loved the stories of L.C.’s parents (that is, Wendell’s grandparents): poor black farmers who weren’t educated, but who had a very strong religious ethic, and who placed enormous value on education and self-discipline as the only reliable means of self-advancement. Poverty was the enemy of both L.C. and my father, but Lloyd and his siblings also had to deal with Jim Crow. If memory serves, every one of the children of Wendell’s grandparents got educated, and escaped poverty. I’m telling you, the chapter on Papo and Mamo (the grandchildren’s name for L.C.’s parents) is worth the price of the book. Here’s a characteristic excerpt:

One Christmas evening after supper, the Edwardses went to call on their College Point neighbors, to wish them a happy holiday. The kids were startled to go into one house and to see that all that family had eaten for their Christmas meal was potatoes and grits. When they returned home, Papo told the children, “This is what I mean when I tell you it’s important to save for a rainy day. If you put your money aside now, you will have enough to eat well on Christmas.”

Given the man Papo was, if the Edwardses had any food left, he probably took it to that poor family and didn’t tell his own children for the sake of preserving their neighbors’ dignity.

His children remembered Papo as a slow talker but a deep thinker. He never made a quick decision, but acted only after prayer, deliberation, and sleeping on it. Whatever the answer was, he arrived at it through careful reason, not passion. Acting on impulse was the sure way to lose your money, in Papo’s view.

Papo worked for a time in a sugar factory and received his weekly wages in a brown packet. He had a firm rule with himself: Wait twenty-four hours before spending a penny of it. Uncle L.C. said that as a young working man, he thought his father’s rule was silly. You have the money, he figured, so why not enjoy it?

But when he got married and started a family of his own, he understood Papo’s good sense and followed the rule himself. Uncle L.C., who worked at the DuPont chemical plant, has done well through saving and investing over the years. To this day, he credits Papo for teaching him by word and example the importance of being careful with your money and not letting your passions guide your decisions.

Talking with L.C. was like speaking with a black version of my own father. Though he had long been in retirement when I met him, L.C. was always thinking of ways he could make a little money. He told me about how he would take fatherless black boys from a nearby trailer park, and try to teach them something about working to make money and to plan for the future. He told me how sorry he felt for those young men, who had no father in the home to offer them direction, or a sense of responsible manhood.

But his pity had strict limits. Like my own father, L.C. was death on those who wouldn’t work or practice self-discipline. He told me about how his own wife, a retired public schoolteacher, quit her job the very day the last of their adult children no longer needed their help paying for college. She was of a generation for whom education was the most precious thing, their ticket out of poverty and oppression. Today, though, she was worn down by students who wouldn’t work, wouldn’t behave themselves, and parents who blamed the schools and the teachers for their kids’ failures.

American culture is far less friendly to the worldview of those Depression babies like L.C. and my father. Politics and economics are complicated things. You can’t simply apply a moral code to every situation, and expect it to solve the problem. But let’s recognize this: very few Americans in 2018 are as materially poor as my dad and L.C. Edwards were when they came into this world in the 1930s. Is there anybody in America today who is poorer than a black child born to uneducated farmers living in the Deep South under American apartheid? And yet, look what they did with what they had been given! There never will be a society in which family won’t matter, and in which moral self-discipline won’t matter. 

The wealthy, and those with social connections, can absorb a lot more disorder than the less well off can, but money won’t last forever.

The world we have today is wealthier, and in some ways is better able to defray the cost of that disorder. We have more of a social safety net today than we did back then. But this world is much poorer in social capital, which is not something you can raise from Chinese bankers.

There’s a lot of brokenness in this country, and no clear way to fix it. The people my dinner companion and I were talking about last night are white. They live in Charles Murray’s fictional Fishtown. They diverge greatly from the core values and practices of stable middle-class and well-off Americans, in ways that were not true a couple of generations ago. Society has grown far more individualistic and tolerant of non-conformity. This is not entirely a bad thing! But the cost to people who don’t have a lot of social and material capital to begin with has been immense. People love to imagine that if only we brought good jobs back to America, or voted in this or that political party, then these problems would solve themselves. I don’t believe that’s true. That’s no reason not to try to improve opportunities for people, but there are no government programs or private charitable initiatives that can meaningfully compensate for the loss of a sense of moral order and purpose.

Finally, I phrase occurred to me while writing this post, a fragment from something I’d read ages ago. I googled it, and the source turned up here. Here is the excerpt I was thinking about. The writer is talking about the 1950s:

It was a more human world in that it was a sexier world, because sex was still a story. Each high school senior class had exactly one girl who got pregnant and one guy who was the father, and it was the town’s annual scandal. Either she went somewhere and had the baby and put it up for adoption, or she brought it home as a new baby sister, or the couple got married and the town topic changed. It was a stricter, tougher society, but its bruising sanctions came from ancient wisdom.

We have all had a moment when all of a sudden we looked around and thought: The world is changing, I am seeing it change. This is for me the moment when the new America began: I was at a graduation ceremony at a public high school in New Jersey. It was 1971 or 1972. One by one a stream of black-robed students walked across the stage and received their diplomas. And a pretty young girl with red hair, big under her graduation gown, walked up to receive hers. The auditorium stood up and applauded. I looked at my sister: “She’s going to have a baby.”

The girl was eight months pregnant and had had the courage to go through with her pregnancy and take her finals and finish school despite society’s disapproval.

But: Society wasn’t disapproving. It was applauding. Applause is a right and generous response for a young girl with grit and heart. And yet, in the sound of that applause I heard a wall falling, a thousand-year wall, a wall of sanctions that said: We as a society do not approve of teenaged unwed motherhood because it is not good for the child, not good for the mother and not good for us.

The old America had a delicate sense of the difference between the general (“We disapprove”) and the particular (Let’s go help her”). We had the moral self-confidence to sustain the paradox, to sustain the distance between “official” disapproval and “unofficial” succor. The old America would not have applauded the girl in the big graduation gown, but some of its individuals would have helped her not only materially but with some measure of emotional support. We don’t so much anymore. For all our tolerance and talk we don’t show much love to what used to be called girls in trouble. As we’ve gotten more open-minded we’ve gotten more closed-hearted.

Message to society: What you applaud, you encourage. And: Watch out what you celebrate.

The author of those words is Peggy Noonan. She published them in, get this, 1992. Some things have gotten better over the last 26 years. For example, when she published this, David Dinkins was mayor of her town, New York City, and the city would record just over 2,000 homicides. Know how many the city recorded last year, 25 years after the column was published? Only 290.  Progress is real!

On the other hand, I can’t get out of my head the words spoken to me by a professor at an Evangelical Christian college. Speaking about the student body, which is predominantly white, he told me that he didn’t think most of them would ever be able to form stable families. I was shocked by this.These were not kids from the blighted projects or wretched rural trailer parks. Why not? I asked.

He said, “Because they have never seen it done.”

We live in a society in which the moral code that we applaud and the people we celebrate all say: Take the marshmallow now, and don’t worry about the future. This is going to cost us.

Read more from The American Conservative…

YouTube openly allows children to watch violent gun massacre…

If your video suddenly becomes banned by YouTube and you receive a “Community Guidelines strike,” it could be that your video violated YouTube’s guidelines, which prohibit any videos from encouraging violence and drug abuse. If this rule was fair and applied equally, then why did YouTube openly allow children to view a violent gun massacre depiction video, while banning the same video that included important commentary that exposed the video’s message of hate? The problem with YouTube’s rules is they are manipulated to prop up one agenda of leftist brainwashing and hate, while also censoring out any dissidence or important debate.

Read more from Paul Joseph Watson…

Liberal town tells business to remove ‘excessive’ American flags. Now the business is fighting back.

To honor veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice, employees at Laer Reality in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, placed 200 American flags in the grass in the front of their office, which lay adjacent to a busy intersection.

Then the town ordered the flags removed, citing the violation of a town statute for “excessive” flags. Now the business is fighting back.

What happened?

“On Saturday we came out and we lined this with 200 flags in support of our deceased veterans and all the people who have served,” Laer employee Jon Crandall told WBZ-TV.

The business didn’t hear anything negative until Friday, according to Crandall, who said when he showed up to work on Friday there was a note on the door from the city about the flags.

The note explained the business had violated the town’s code for “excessive flags,” and requested the business remove the majority of the flags, so only a “reasonable” amount remained.

According to Michael McCall, Chelmsford’s Assistant Town Manager, the town’s bylaws say flags cannot be used for “commercial promotion.”

“This is a commercial establishment located at a busy intersection. It was in the front lawn of that particular property, and in the opinion of our code enforcement officer, the building commissioner, it was a violation,” he told WBZ.

How did the business respond?

Instead of removing flags, the business added about 300 more. Now, about 500 flags are prominently displaced in front of the business.

“We feel this is a patriotic act. It’s not about our business. It’s about supporting our troops, supporting veterans,” Crandall said. “I think the flags speak for themselves. I don’t think we need to get into a fight with city hall.”

WBZ noted the business is working with the town to determine how many it is allowed to display.

Read more from The Blaze…

Hidden Camera Shows What Really Happens To Your Luggage Once It’s Out Of Your Sight

After buying a plane ticket and boarding your flight, you’re at the whim of the captain, cabin crew, and baggage handlers. Flying puts us in a vulnerable position. We have to trust that the people working for the airline are well trained and care about their work. If they’re fooling around or not in a good mood, mistakes could be made, which puts people’s lives in jeopardy.

Although the way the airline handles our baggage does not dictate our safety onboard the flight, you pay good money to fly and expect your belongings to be handled with care. But one man proved that your baggage could get violated when it is out of your sight.

Thieves and criminals lurk in all sorts of situations. And you never really know how someone will act until they think no one is watching.

27-year-old Abdullah Hayee Mayeh thought no one was watching while he was working for Jetstar. While in the baggage loading area, Mayeh was caught violating passenger trust as he rummaged through luggage and pilfered valuables from the trusting passengers.

Mayeh was caught stealing a Bluetooth speaker as well as illegally searching passengers’ bags. The incident occurred on a flight from Phuket to Singapore back on October 10, 2017. Thankfully, someone caught him on video and managed to report his crimes to the authorities. That means Mayeh won’t be stealing passengers’ valuables anymore.

But what about other crooks who handle baggage? Are there measures in place to protect passengers from thievery?

In the United States, the TSA long ago prohibited travelers from using locks on their luggage. While this made it easier for TSA agents to search luggage for bombs and weapons, it also neutered a traveler’s ability to protect their stuff from theft.

Fortunately, Mayeh’s theft was caught on closed-circuit security cameras at the Phuket International Airport. He committed the theft from a Jetstar Airways traveler while the plane was in Bay 15 at the airport. It was Mayeh’s job to load the luggage onto the aircraft, which was parked on the tarmac, gearing up for takeoff.

Police obtained the CCTV video and confronted Mayeh. When they showed it to him, he confessed to his crimes. Then he returned the Bluetooth speaker and urged the public service department of the airport to return it to its rightful owner.

Mayeh was then charged with robbery and arrested. He was handcuffed and taken to the Saku Police Station where he was booked.

As this incident shows, you cannot protect your luggage from all problems. But when you travel, you should keep valuables like the Bluetooth speaker in your carry luggage. This ensures that you have your electronics and other valuables near you and within sight. You never know who is going to be handling your luggage behind the scenes, and if you’re unfortunate enough to have your luggage assigned to someone like Mayeh, items could get stolen. Thankfully, the security camera caught him in the act, and he was confronted and arrested.

Do you trust airlines with your checked luggage?

Read more from American Web Media…

UK contractor to pay $20 million to settle lawsuit claiming it overcharged US Navy

U.K. contractor Inchcape Shipping Services Holdings Limited has agreed to pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit alleging the company intentionally over-billed the U.S. Navy under contracts for ship husbanding services.

The marine services contractor violated the False Claims Act, the U.S. Department of Justice announced this week.

Inchcape provided ships with food and other survival items, waste removal, telephone services, ship-to-shore transportation, force protection services and local transportation to U.S. Navy ships.

The Navy ships were located at ports in southwest Asia, Africa, Panama, North America, South America and Mexico.

The lawsuit alleged that from 2005 to 2014, Inchcape submitted intentionally inflated invoices for goods and services, and in some instances even double billed.

“Federal contractors may only charge the government for costs allowed by their federal contracts. The Department of Justice will take action against contractors that knowingly submit inflated claims to the armed forces — or any other agency of the United States — as those inflated claims wrongfully divert taxpayer dollars,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler said.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu said: “We trust contractors supporting our warfighters to act with the utmost integrity and expect them to comply with their obligations to bill the government as called for by their contracts. This settlement reflects our Office’s strong commitment to holding accountable those who violate these fundamental principles, no matter where they may be located.”

“This settlement demonstrates that the Department of the Navy will continue to hold contractors accountable for the agreements they make to supply our fleet. The Department expects strict adherence to higher standards within the Department and expects the same from its contractors,” Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer said.

Jeremy Gauthier, Special Agent in Charge of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service’s (NCIS) D.C. field office, said: “Fraud is an abuse of the system that siphons resources away from the American warfighter. NCIS will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold responsible those who would put personal gain above corporate integrity.”

Read more from American Military News…

Virginia elections board fines Gillespie campaign $2K over TV ads

Republican candidate Ed Gillespie was fined $2,000 Monday for technicalities related to his TV ads from the 2017 governor’s race. Gillespie’s campaign included the required disclosure notices, but the state elections board ruled that the extra text on the screen violated the state’s stand-by-your ad laws.

Read more from William Wheeler …

Muslim salon technician refuses to perform wax treatment on transgender ‘woman,’ complaint filed

A Canadian business in Windsor, Ontario, is facing a civil rights complaint after denying a wax treatment to a transgender individual, CHWI-TV reported.

What damages are sought?

The complainant is seeking $50,00 for “immense harm to my dignity,” according to a filing with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario against the Mad Wax salon. The Human Rights Tribunal is a court in Ontario, Canada, agency that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, which defines human or civil rights.

According to the complaint, she called Mad Wax about a leg wax treatment and asked if transgender women are welcome at the salon. An employee told her the manager would call her back.

Manager Jason Carruthers returned the call and allegedly said the business does not provide waxing services on men if the technician objects. He also said his technician is a Muslim woman who is not comfortable providing services to males. Carruthers added that no other staffers were available to perform the service.

The complainant, who was not named in the report, told the manager it was his duty to provide the service. She went to another business to receive the service, the report stated.

What did the owner say?

Carruthers, the president and CEO of Mad Wax Windsor Camp Inc., told the TV station he was served with papers and has retained legal counsel.

“All clients regardless of sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation are welcome,” Carruthers said. “However, we also welcome staff members and respect their religious beliefs and feelings of safety and dignity in regards to the right not to perform waxing services on males or male genitals.”

The complaint states that the businesses “refusal to provide me with leg-waxing services because I am a Transgender woman, and their disclosing my name, gender identity and personal information to various media outlets has left me feeling threatened, exposed, with my rights violated in terms of seeking services as a woman in the Windsor-Essex community.”

Read more from The Blaze…

The Santa Fe killer will not face the death penalty and could be paroled. Here’s why.

The 17-year-old Texas student accused of walking into Santa Fe High School Friday morning to murder his classmates will not face the death penalty and could be paroled in the future.

What are the details?

The suspected killer, who TheBlaze will not name, is considered an “adult” in the Texas criminal justice system. But his state classification, and the fact he is charged with capital murder, will not stop a 2005 Supreme Court ruling from keeping him alive.

The high court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that imposing the death penalty on persons younger than 18 years old is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, which outlaws “cruel and unusual punishment.” The landmark decision came just three years after the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for people deemed intellectually disabled.

In addition, a 2012 Supreme Court Case — Miller v. Alabama — determined it is unconstitutional to sentence juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole no matter how serious of a crime the juvenile committed.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion that sentencing a juvenile to life without parole also violated the Eighth Amendment. As USA Today noted, that means the suspected Santa Fe killer could be eligible for parole in 40 years, or when he is 57 years old.

Why did SCOTUS rule the way it did?

Michael Radelet, a sociology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told USA Today the court’s rulings had nothing to do with depravity of crimes, but rather the cognitive development of minors.

“The courts ruled based on the idea that those 17 and younger don’t have the cognitive development to appreciate right from wrong. Cases like this that are especially violent and an enigma make some people think they are more deserving of death, but the ruling is about the development of the juvenile brain,” Radelet told USA Today.

However, Radelet expressed caution to those who believe the suspected Santa Fe killer will not face adequate justice because he is ineligible for the death penalty and life without parole.

“It’s wrong to say this young man can’t be held responsible for these crimes,” Radelet said. “Forty years is a tough row to hoe, and even then a parole board might not agree he’s not totally damaged or able to make a satisfactory transition into the community in 2058.”

Read more from The Blaze…

Supreme Court Hits One Out of the Park

The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling this week that paves the way for states other than Nevada to legalize sports betting is a victory for states’ rights and should put another nail in the coffin for those attempting to ban all forms of online gaming.

SCOTUS voted 6-3 in favor of New Jersey and nearly 20 other states to strike down the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which made it illegal for a state other than Nevada, which was exempted, to sponsor sports wagering.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that “the legalization of sports gambling is an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.”

New Jersey tried to pass a law in 2014 that repealed provisions of its existing bans on sports wagering, but courts ruled against the Garden State. Former Gov. Chris Christie took the fight to the Supreme Court, arguing that PASPA was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment’s decree reserving powers for the states that aren’t designated to the United States by the Constitution.

A coalition of states fought alongside New Jersey, saying in court briefs that if SCOTUS ruled against their side, “Congress could compel the entire machinery of state government — legislatures, executives and courts — to maintain and enforce repealed state laws at the behest of the federal government.”

As the arguments over PASPA have occurred, another federal law with a weird acronym — UIGEA — has also been heavily debated. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which put a halt to the booming online poker industry, purports to enforce the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, but an Obama administration ruling in 2011 said the Wire Act didn’t apply to wagers other than sports. And given that there was no internet in 1961, the law seems inapplicable to modern technology.

That ruling paved the way for states such as New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware, and Pennsylvania to legalize online poker and/or casino games. But even as those jurisdictions began allowing internet wagers, a movement sprung up to abolish the games at the federal level.

The Restore America’s Wire Act was introduced, backed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his Coalition to Stop Online Gambling, but hasn’t seen much traction in the past two years. Adelson’s move was criticized as crony capitalism and self-serving considering his financial stake in the outcome.

When Pennsylvania passed a law allowing online market in 2017 it practically doubled to 25 million the number of American citizens who have access to online poker and casinos. In 2017, when Pennsylvania joined Delaware, New Jersey, and Nevada and passed a law allowing online gaming, the number of citizens who have access to online poker and casinos practically doubled to 25 million. In contrast, about 60 million people can access online lotteries, which has been legal for years. Now, the majority of the country can play daily fantasy sports and there’s no telling how many people will be able to make live and online wagers on sporting events, as states mull the paradigm shift in federal gaming law. The numbers of Americans who will be able to access online gaming will make it hard to build a strong groundswell of support to overturn existing laws allowing it.

Some states such as West Virginia have already passed laws allowing some forms of sports betting in anticipation of PASPA being overturned.

Steve Ruddock, a reporter and online gaming expert at Online Poker Report, previously said he thinks RAWA is “dead and buried,” and pointed out that overturning PASPA would add more shovels full of dirt to the effort.

“There’s a huge tidal wave of gaming and online gaming that’s going on… to roll that back now is not something that anyone could seriously consider,” Ruddock said.

Given the nationwide popularity of sports, it would seem even more unlikely a ban effort would see success after the Supreme Court ruling.

Industry experts also expect the legalization of sports betting to have a positive influence on the expansion of online gaming in general.

“If we win sports wagering, online gaming will go to every state that adopts sports betting,” David Rebuck, director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, previously told the Associated Press.

That’s the way these things are supposed to work, with states and the free market determining whether sports betting on a nationwide scale will be successful or fail. Kudos to SCOTUS for removing the heavy-handed federal regulations that blocked states’ rights to decide the issue for themselves. Now let’s play ball.

Johnny Kampis is investigative reporter for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation.

The post Supreme Court Hits One Out of the Park appeared first on The American Spectator.

Read more from The American Spectator…