Monday roundup

The New Yorker profile of Samantha Power.

Power rejects the facile narrative that presents itself—the education, the chastening. “The way that kind of story is told is ‘She wrote the book, she was critical because she didn’t really understand how hard it was,’ ” she said. “And then the assumption is Eliza Doolittle learned how hard it is, and then that makes her less critical, or more accepting of crummy outcomes.” She argued, “You learn in government what the obstacles are. But that’s not so you can go take a nap. It’s so you can figure out how to scale them or work around them. Does one get a better sense about context and about impediments and about trade-offs in government? Absolutely. But those are not alibis—those are problems to be solved.”

Side note: I was in grad school with Jeremy K., saw him last year at a reunion of sorts (not the big one). Didn't realize he was heading up that office.

Coates on police reform.

Hurting animals doesn't have to be as bad as hurting people for us to look to avoid it. Really, with this?

The vast populations of cows, pigs and chickens exist only because we raise them for food. A world of vegetarians would be a world without such animals because there would be no economic reason to raise them. The claim that non-existence is morally preferable to one that ends in premature abattoir death seems, at the least, debatable.

Someone's not that familiar with the factory farming system. As for,

Unlike these authors, I am more cautious, tending to clap the phrase "animal rights" in scare quotes. That's because I'm committed to a model of rights that is simultaneously inalienable and defined by their reciprocal relationship to social duties. Accordingly, I'm not sure I make sense of a concept of "rights" that doesn't include "responsibilities". My rights are the limiting case of how society must treat me; my responsibilities are the structures of obligation I owe to society. The two necessarily go together. If animals have rights, what are their responsibilities?

That just doesn't hold. Babies have the right not to be abused; do they have any responsibilities? If we're going to question the term "animal rights" on semantics, consider the semantics of "human rights." The very concept refers to inalienable, unearned rights that we have by virtue of being alive. Do animals not have a right not to be tortured?

On a lighter note... lower gas prices aren't keeping people from public transportation.

Don't let anyone tell your childrent that they're "superior." Carolyn explains:

When kids hear repeatedly that they’re wonderful, it actually inhibits their willingness to try hard and risk failure; they become invested in preserving everyone’s image of them as smart or superior. Instead of building up their self-esteem, such praise has the inverse effect of eroding it.

The research leading to this conclusion also supports giving praise for hard work, which encourages a child to invest in that instead. Bonus, you get to become the next set of parents routinely using the word “grit” even when not eating shellfish.

As I keep telling the ladies: do not call him! I can't believe the denial that goes on in some people's heads (actually, I can). Again, Carolyn explains:

Hope, meanwhile, does nothing for you. It not only holds you in a place the facts don’t support, but also actively talks you out of accepting what the facts are saying. Fact: He chose not to keep dating you. Fact: He has not taken any steps to reverse this choice. Fact: Breakups don’t have to be fair or logical.

But here’s a different kind of fact that’s actually in your favor, if you choose to embrace it: What makes a relationship “wonderful” is two people who mutually, gratefully seek each other’s company.