Frame Game

cousin marriage

Darwinian — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:54:49 GMT

Published by Harvard University Press, October 2009 INCEST AND INFLUENCE The Private Life of Bourgeois England ADAM KUPER Like many gentlemen of his time, Charles Darwin married his first cousin. In fact, marriages between close relatives were commonplace in nineteenth-century England, and Adam Kuper argues that they played a crucial role in the rise of the bourgeoisie. Incest and Influence shows us just how the political networks of the eighteenth-century aristocracy were succeeded by hundreds of in-married bourgeois clans—in finance and industry, in local and national politics, in the church, and in intellectual life. In a richly detailed narrative, Kuper deploys his expertise as an anthropologist to analyze kin marriages among the Darwins and Wedgwoods, in Quaker and Jewish banking families, and in the Clapham Sect and their descendants over four generations, ending with a revealing account of the Bloomsbury Group, the most eccentric product of English bourgeois endogamy. These marriage strategies were the staple of novels, and contemporaries were obsessed with them. But there were concerns. Ideas about incest were in flux as theological doctrines were challenged. For forty years Victorian parliaments debated whether a man could marry his deceased wife’s sister. Cousin marriage troubled scientists, including Charles Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton, provoking revolutionary ideas about breeding and heredity. This groundbreaking study brings out the connection between private lives, public fortunes, and the history of imperial Britain.

Health issues of marrying cousins

flakca — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:23:23 GMT

The incidence of birth defects among children of 1st cousins may be offset by a lower incidence of cancer. Some studies have indicated that diversity between mates increases cancer risk. This is thought to be due to a higher ratio of genetic mismatches. When two families have been separated for 1000 generations, then they have diverged to a greater degree than when the family has been separated for 1 or 2 generations.

An illustration of this exists in nature. When a lion male and female tiger are cross bred it produces an offspring known as a "liger". Ligers are larger than either parent and share characteristics of both. The problem is they almost always die of cancer. The thought is that there is too much genetic dissimilarity. That mismatch of genes provides a higher number of opportunities for cancer, due to cancer occurring when several genetic problems occur at once in the same cell.

If all of this is true, then that might explain the higher incidence of cancer in the US versus Europe, Japan, etc. since the US is more genetically diverse than most of Europe or Japan etc.

Getting back to marrying cousins; if you marry your cousin and produce children without birth defects, those offspring might be more resistant to certain cancers. So its pay me now or pay me later.

Of course Mr Salaten thinks Gov Sanford was more honest

Philadelphia Steve — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:01:34 GMT

Sanford is a Republican.

Love BS?

middle path — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:29:55 GMT

What is the deal with the posters on here that imply that somehow, if he loves her, that Sanford's cheating is somehow less reprehensible or sleazy than another politician who just wants a one night stand? This is bad behavior period. And the same bad behavior. It's the exact same lack of respect for his wife and children as any other person who cheats. Saying it's for love, as if that's some kind of disclaimer, is disingenous and delusional. People sleep with 13 year olds, and commit murder for love too, doesn't make it some how less wrong because 'love' is involved.

Mark Sanford and Elliot Spitzer: Compare and Contrast

bsharporflat — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:54:17 GMT

Mark Sanford and Elliot Spitzer: Compare and Contrast

Mark Sanford

DebbieR — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:25:48 GMT

There is a difference between belittling and renouncing it and broadcasting it to the entire world. If he was really as concerned as he claimed about his wife and family, he would announce his affair, say he would resign from his job if that's what the voters wanted, and shut the hell up about it.

No need to go into a whole weepy saga. If his wife is serious about being able to look her boys in the eye she will initiate divorce proceedings soon. Perhaps his performance will have left her no choice.

He loves the Argentine

humbyhumby — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:20:37 GMT

I did think it was an honest confession. I think he loves the Argentine woman. That is why he did not "throw her under the bus". The fact that he went to Argentina and that his wife knew he went there is highly unusual. Unless that marriage is heading for divorce and he plans on leaving his wife for his mistress. That is likely why he did not minimize the affair and categorize it as the worst thing he ever did. He plans on being with her because he loves her.

It's Not The Sex

Guylinder — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:31:12 GMT

It's not the sex. It's that he disappeared without telling his staff, his legislature or his family that he was leaving. He didn't tell them where he was going and he didn't contact them while he was gone. He pulled a Runaway Bride stunt. When other people disappear like this, the police are called and missing person's reports are filed.

This behavior shows pathological selfishness and mental instability. He is not fit to be a governor. Hell, he is not fit to be a clerical worker. If you or I pulled something like this, we'd be fired and paying the police for the search. Why does he get to keep the job of the head of a state when a janitor would be let go for such behavior? "I think I'll take off for Brazil for a few days and get laid. Nobody will notice and hey, what business is it of theirs anyway?"

The GOP is trying to spin this as a private affair between the governor and his family. That is not what this is. It is certainly up to his family what to do regarding his private life. But he has shown he is not capable of handling a job as a public servant. He needs to leave office.

B.Clinton = PERJURY. Why can't Clinton defenders get that?

texifornia — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:43:47 GMT

Bill Clinton committed the criminal offense of perjury during deposition for the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.* Sanford had an affair. There's a big fucking difference between perjury committed during a deposition for a harassment suit - the underlying facts of which seem like borderline rape - and a simple extramarital affair. Nobody was impeaching Clinton for having an affair. The "Republicans were just using sex to impeach the president" line was a red herring put forward by Clinton apologists.

*Here are some lurid details from the incident giving rise to the Jones lawsuit:

12. Jones agreed to meet with the Governor because she thought it might lead to an enhanced employment opportunity with the State. Blackard told Jones that she would assume Plaintiff's duties at the registration desk. 13. Trooper Ferguson then escorted Jones to the floor of the hotel suite whose number had been written on the slip of paper Trooper Ferguson had given to Jones. The door was slightly ajar when she arrived at the suite.....A few minutes of small talk ensued, which included asking Jones about her job. Clinton told Jones that Dave Harrington is "my good friend." On May 8, 1991, David Harrington was Director of the AIDC, having been appointed to that post by Governor Clinton. Harrington was Jones' ultimate superior within the AIDC. 18. Clinton then took Jones' hand and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were in close proximity. 19. Jones removed her hand from his and retreated several feet. 20. However, Clinton approached Jones again. He said: "I love the way your hair flows down your back" and "I love your curves." While saying these things, Clinton put his hand on Plaintiff's leg and started sliding it toward the hem of Plaintiff's culottes. Clinton also bent down to attempt to kiss Jones on the neck. 21. Jones exclaimed, "What are you doing?" and escaped from Clinton's physical proximity by walking away from him. Jones tried to distract Clinton by chatting with him about his wife. Jones later took a seat at the end of the sofa nearest the door. Clinton asked Jones: "Are you married?" She responded that she had a regular boyfriend. Clinton then approached the sofa and as he sat down he lowered his trousers and underwear exposing his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." 22. There were distinguishing characteristics in Clinton's genital area that were obvious to Jones. 23. Jones became horrified, jumped up from the couch, stated that she was "not that kind of girl" and said: "Look, I've got to go." She attempted to explain that she would get in trouble for being away from the registration desk. 24. Clinton, while fondling his penis said: "Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do." Clinton then stood up and pulled up his pants and said: "If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of it." As Jones left the room Clinton looked sternly at Jones and said: "You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves."

legally pro choice = pro choice.

jwschmidt — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:48:17 GMT

Saletan points out correctly that just because a slim majority of Americans call themselves pro-life, this does little to change the fact that the vast majority of Americans still think abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.

But the fact is is that the abortion debate, (while it is "about" many things), only comes down to one yay-or-nay question which determines everything: is it legal? Can someone have an abortion? The moral, ethical, or what-have-you debates that lead people to support or oppose its legality are many, but this is a legal issue.

This is why I constantly get annoyed when some of my friends say, "Oh I'm pro choice, but I think people should be allowed to have abortions."

"Well," I usually reply, doing my best to hide my frustration, "if you think that people, including yourself, should be legally allowed to choose whether or not they have an abortion, then that means you're pro-choice. If you don't think people should be able to have that option available to them, then you are pro-life."

Because thats how making rules in our society plays out. I could care less what you would personally prescribe for yourself; thats your business. Its what you want to prescribe for me, and other people, that matters.

I'm fairly certain this shift in the polls is largely due to the Republican strategy of personalizing the abortion debate. The strategy has been to get individuals to think about how difficult or bad it would be to have an abortion, and then turn that personal opinion into a legal prescription for 300 million other people. When Sarah Palin was asked about her position on abortion, she said "I would council someone to choose life." Well whoop-de-doo Mrs. Palin, that tells us nothing of relevance. Politicians support or oppose laws, they don't council us personally. By using the language of the personal regarding abortion, Republicans have been able to subtly convince undecided people that the abortion debate is just one big solopsist excercise in which their own choice should be made legally mandatory for the whole country.

Doesn't he owe it to his wife?

Potterchik — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:58:15 GMT

...to at least try to appear that he wants to be with her? Sanford came off sounding like, if he weren't a politician with a career to salvage, he'd be in Argentina in a heartbeat. In addition to betraying her trust, he has now humiliated his wife by publicly behaving as if she is merely an obstacle to the life he really wants. Shame, shame on him. He still doesn't understand that her feelings matter; it's all about him.

Oh, and if it takes you five days to break off a relationship, you're doing it wrong.

Sanford's spirit

boredwell — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:43:56 GMT

Yeah, for sure, Sanford is, as you say, a bit of a "weirdo." I mean, he actually wanted to refuse the fed's state stimulus bucks! The senate put him in his place. Then he gets even weirder: buys a RT tik to Buenos Aires with state funds; lies about going for walk on the Appalachian Trial (for 8 days?). All this after keeping his beloved's letter for his wife to find! And, so lax is he in guarding his privacy he leaves his emails unsecured. And, while I find it weird for politicians to ramble on about their professed morals and christian values, it was Sanford's prerogative. I guess according to the bible, one could say that Mark's spirit was willing but his flesh was weak. So be it.

But he did stand up to the plate when he admitted really deep friendship. That "sparking" (weird word, that) and "crying about what to say" when he returned to SC, his wife, kids, constituents and media (1) does point to some weirdness as well though, to be empathetic, he is clearly going through a mid-life critical mass. What a long plane trip that must have been.

As you say, he didn't kick his ammorata to the curb; never wished he hadn't falled head over meals into that friendship (he never mentions the word "love"). Mark respects her and her privacy. Hey, he even had a tete a tete with her about getting back with her estranged husband. Nice guy, that, eh?!

I would have to say this, too: I'll make a bet his other half is not all she's cracked up to be. I've read 4 of the governor's people quit because they found her obtrusive (meddling in the gov's office) and difficult to "deal with." Maybe that "bubble" he was hoping to pop out of was his marriage. Well, whatever the outcome, I give him marks, even though he a conservative, chistian family values sort of guy, for his emotions and treating the other person with decency. He does have some integrity, doncha think?

You know you've screwed up when Fox

degsme — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:27:28 GMT

You know you've screwed up when Fox calls you a Democrat

http://xs140.xs.to/xs140/09263/fnc_20090624_sanford113.jpg

His confession was worse than his "sin"

anyman — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:58 GMT

I was really disgusted with the abjectness, the wordiness, the repetitiveness, the crying, the miserable subjugation to "higher authority" (in words only of course--he's not resigning from office, which you would think would be necessary for true "penance"). It was like watching a man figuratively flay himself. It must be great to be a "religious" person and be able to do something dastardly and then be able to reclaim yourself just by apologizing enough.

I would be more impressed with Sanford's honesty if...

tom2wheatley — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:00:10 GMT

... it had not been brought about by his being caught in a lie. He was still lying through his teeth up until the point that the local newspaper told him that they had emails and were going to release them. Also, he claimed that he and his wife had been trying to "work through it" for the last five months. Is it just me? That doesn't seem to jive with the fact that he had just spent nearly a week with his mistress.

If we really want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, maybe we should allow gays to marry, but not politicians.

Dem, Repub or Independent...

baldone66 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:43:32 GMT

... Keep it in your pants!!!

Any excuse to bash Clinton

jwin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:47:34 GMT

Is good enough for William Saletan. Tell me do you advertise your amazing power of ESP to the FBI?

Let's not forget what Sanford's real sin was.

Quint — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:17:53 GMT

The complete act of responsibility in not letting anyone know what he was doing, and potentially jeopardizing the continuance of governance in the state. Add that with the lies his office weaved to cover for his affair...."Oh, yeah, he's......uhmmmmm....hiking the Appalachian trail! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

I could care less about the affair, other than to maybe lob a few stones at one of the people who took Clinton to task for the same thing.

More honest? Or just honest?

TheChemist — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:36:08 GMT

The Mark Sanford (forgive me if there's still some doubt to his honesty, it seems to change hourly) who gave that press conference yesterday obviously is in love with his mistress, that much is plain. It sucks for his family, but I'm pretty sure half of him wants to say "F**k it!" and move to Argentina where he obviously thinks his best chance at romantic love resides.

But there's also the half of him who realizes that in order to do that, he would have to flush his career, the summit of which has taken his entire life so far, down the proverbial toilet. That's hard to do - to say nothing of the pain of absence from his kids who one must assume he still loves dearly.

But to say, as the article's headline suggests, that this was somehow more honest than the apologies of the other politicians, is (at best) disengenous. Or perhaps the author thinks he can read minds (par for the course in our current new-agey pop-psych political commentary)?

Given the known circumstances of their dalliance, does anyone really think Clinton was in love with Lewinsky? By all accounts he was working or eating through the actual sex acts. Does that strike you as the way one behaves towards a loved one? Edwards also seemed to have a similar epiphany and we probably would have never known of his affair if not for the child it produced. All the others were patrons of prostitutes, the rules of such engagements are expressed and known by both parties before money is exchanged. "Girlfriend experience" B.S. notwithstanding.

Perhaps I'm drawing to fine a point here, but lust and passion are not love. They can develop into love, given the right nuturing and time, but they do not start out this way. Love at first sight is a romanticized load of B.S. Most of us fall for it some time in our lives. If we are currently unattached and our motives are pure, what can result from pure attraction is love.

To put it another way: Rarely are lasting, loving relationships the byproduct of extra-maritial affairs. Once the initial passion fades, the fact staring you in the face is that you're probably not as into the person as you initially thought. Trust in any ensuing relationship would be fleeting, at best. Reality eventually rears its ugly head and most sane people realize that the feelings they had were only temporary.

Wrong Issue

DD1256 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:41:04 GMT

We have been round and round about infidelity with politicians, entertainers, and athletes; enough. The media acts like giggling 12 year olds. That is not the issue(s), the issues are :

United State governors do not just disappear, even for a day. I believe they have a responsibility to their state, their constituents, and their staff. They cannot have 6 days of unexplained private time.

United States governors cannot travel outside the country (or at least they shouldn't) without doing a courtesy check-in in with the Secretary of State, or even maybe the CIA. It is a dangerous world out there, even in countries that we perceive are friendly to the US. Although the CIA has not been totally accurate in the past, it might be helpful to know what "could" happen during the trip.

United States governors are just a notch in importance below the president. They need to have some presence of security here in the US and especially outside the country.

United States governors should not lie to the press and their staff (in this case, three times). As I remember, the problem is always the cover up, not the affair or the law breaking.

Oh come on

cat51 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:29:48 GMT

Honest??? Seriously, if he were an honest man he wouldn't have gotten into this mess. He only came clean because he was caught. This story about crying in Argentina and breaking it off - I doubt it. Do you really need that long to say goodbye? I would bet that if he had gotten away with this he would have gone "hiking" a lot more in the future.

What difference does it make how he came across in the apology anyway? The thing that matters is what he's done, and hasn't done. He's a sorry excuse for a man. An arrogant lying bastard who thought he could get away with anything.

To tell you the truth, all that really matters in a politician is that he does his job right. Sanford is so erratic and immature, he is actually worse than the others you cite. He not only is a bad husband (which is not my business, really) he is an unreliable and incompetent politician.

Honest, perhaps, but telling too...

tracker — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:12:39 GMT

I don't see any reason to take the cynical route Saletan considers, nor to take the cynical route lots of posters are taking, that this is just a dink covering up for his narcissism. I think it sounds honest, believable (which is refreshing), but also sad in what it reveals about his character. He talks about his relationship with this woman as if it towers above his wife and family and job in importance, which it may, to him, but ought not. He doesn't seem even aware of how screwed up he is ... almost like a teenager who hasn't sorted his priorities.

An honest cheater?

myskylark — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:21:05 GMT

Give me a break. This congratulating Sanford for " 'fessing up like a man" reminds me of the movie "Quiz Show," where Charles Van Doren testifies before a Congressional Committee about his part in the fraud perpetrated by a TV quiz show . The two faced politicians on the committee fell all over themselves congratulating Van Doren for his wonderful honest testimony until a politician from New York took the mike and blasted Van Doren and his fellow committee members, reminding them that Van Doren was there because he was a cheat and a fraud. Ditto Gov. Sanders. He is a cheat who hurt and humiliated his wife and his four sons. He is a cheat who deserted his post as governor and make himself incommunicado while he went traipsing off the Argentina to see his girl friend. If there were a family emergency or a state emergency, the love-sick Gov. Sanford would not have been able to have been reached. Reason enough for his resignation.

He Abandoned His Post

Guylinder — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:04:37 GMT

He is the head of his state. He clearly showed he cannot handle that responsibility by disappearing without telling anyone ahead of time, without letting anyone know where he was going and without letting anyone know how to contact him.

A secretary, a janitor, a gas station attendant would be fired for that behavior. Do not spin this as a sex scandal. This man is unbalanced. He does not grasp the importance of his job. He cannot keep his personal problems separate from his work life. We all have stresses, we all have family problems. Do we disappear from work, disppear from our families, get on a plane and run away? We may feel like doing that, but we know we can't. We know we can't because though we may be overwhelmed, we are sane.

Can you imagine what would be going on if this were a female governor who ran off and abandoned her job and her family to be with a man in another country? They'd call her a crazy hysteric and she'd be forced to resign by her own party.

Harmful to the Institution of Marriage

seamas — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:59:21 GMT

This idiot Sanford has been for YEARS claiming that Gay marriage is an affront to the institution of marriage. It is harmful to the institution and that marriage needs to "be protected" from gay's being included.

Now I ask you.

What has harmed HIS marriage the most?

Two gay guys getting married, or him going off to Argentina to get his groove on???

Damned hypocrite.