The increasing popularity of intermarriage. About 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another, more than double the share in 1980 (6.7%). Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out. Looking at all married couples in 2010, regardless of when they married, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%. In 1980, that share was just 3.2%.
Gender patterns in intermarriage vary widely. About 24% of all black male newlyweds in 2010 married outside their race, compared with just 9% of black female newlyweds. Among Asians, the gender pattern runs the other way. About 36% of Asian female newlyweds married outside their race in 2010, compared with just 17% of Asian male newlyweds. Intermarriage rates among white and Hispanic newlyweds do not vary by gender.
At first glance, recent newlyweds who “married out” and those who “married in” have similar characteristics. In 2008-2010, the median combined annual earnings of both groups are similar—$56,711 for newlyweds who married out versus $55,000 for those who married in. In about one-in-five marriages of each group, both the husband and wife are college graduates. Spouses in the two groups also marry at similar ages (with a two- to three-year age gap between husband and wife), and an equal share are marrying for the first time.
However, these overall similarities mask sharp differences that emerge when the analysis looks in more detail at pairings by race and ethnicity. Some of these differences appear to reflect the overall characteristics of different groups in society at large, and some may be a result of a selection process. For example, white/Asian newlyweds of 2008 through 2010 have significantly higher median combined annual earnings ($70,952) than do any other pairing, including both white/white ($60,000) and Asian/Asian ($62,000). When it comes to educational characteristics, more than half of white newlyweds who marry Asians have a college degree, compared with roughly a third of white newlyweds who married whites. Among Hispanics and blacks, newlyweds who married whites tend to have higher educational attainment than do those who married within their own racial or ethnic group.
Intermarriage and earnings. Couples formed between an Asian husband and a white wife topped the median earning list among all newlyweds in 2008-2010 ($71,800). During this period, white male newlyweds who married Asian, Hispanic or black spouses had higher combined earnings than did white male newlyweds who married a white spouse. As for white female newlyweds, those who married a Hispanic or black husband had somewhat lower combined earnings than those who “married in,” while those who married an Asian husband had significantly higher combined earnings.
Regional differences. Intermarriage in the United States tilts West. About one-in-five (22%) of all newlyweds in Western states married someone of a different race or ethnicity between 2008 and 2010, compared with 14% in the South, 13% in the Northeast and 11% in the Midwest. At the state level, more than four-in-ten (42%) newlyweds in Hawaii between 2008 and 2010 were intermarried; the other states with an intermarriage rate of 20% or more are all west of the Mississippi River. (For rates of intermarriage as well as intra-marriage in all 50 states, see Appendix 2.)
Is more intermarriage good for society? More than four-in-ten Americans (43%) say that more people of different races marrying each other has been a change for the better in our society, while 11% say it has been a change for the worse and 44% say it has made no difference. Minorities, younger adults, the college-educated, those who describe themselves as liberal and those who live in the Northeast or the West are more disposed than others to see intermarriage in a positive light.
Public’s acceptance of intermarriage. More than one-third of Americans (35%) say that a member of their immediate family or a close relative is currently married to someone of a different race. Also, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say it “would be fine” with them if a member of their own family were to marry someone outside their own racial or ethnic group. In 1986, the public was divided about this. Nearly three-in-ten Americans (28%) said people of different races marrying each other was not acceptable for anyone, and an additional 37% said this may be acceptable for others, but not for themselves. Only one-third of the public (33%) viewed intermarriage as acceptable for everyone.
Divorce. Several studies using government data have found that overall divorce rates are higher for couples who married out than for those who married in – but here, too, the patterns vary by the racial and gender characteristics of the couples. These findings are based on scholarly analysis of government data on marriage and divorce collected over the past two decades.

As a trans person, as a queer person, as a -- to use an umbrella term that's less offensive than some such terms, gender and sexual minority group (GSM) member -- part of the emotional work I get asked to do involves assuming good intent. It happens all the time. Someone does, or says something hurtful, and maybe one out of twenty times when it happens, I say something about it. Like "that was hurtful to people like me." Like "don't do it next time." (The other nineteen times out of twenty, I silently rage while convincing myself that saying something would cost energy I can't afford to spend. That's emotional work, too.) Almost all the time, the answer is "well, I didn't intend any harm." The person being critiqued seems unconcerned as to my intent, which is to educate them so they can learn. So really, when they say that it's the intention behind your actions, and not your actions, that matters, they actually mean to apply such a rule selectively. They really mean that privileged people -- people who are white, or who are affluent, or who are men, or who are cisgender, or who have cissexual bodies, or who are heterosexual, or who are able-bodied, or preferably all of the above, get a free pass to do or say anything oppressive, and get out of it because their intent was good. Having meant well is the excuse that becomes the reason not to take criticism, not to listen, not to apologize, not to do better next time.

A horror or science-fiction movie without subtext is like Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory without electricity. The inner metaphor is what gives it life and resonance. Otherwise, it's just a story about stitched-together people parts. Or take David Cronenberg's "The Fly," a riveting, poignant horror/science-fiction/romance about an ambitious scientist who accidentally gets his DNA mixed up with that of a housefly. Everything about the movie is first-rate, from the direction to the performances to the effects. But what really grabs hold of you is the universal theme: We are all Brundlefly, sentient, self-aware beings whose bodies are going to decay and die. In 1986, a lot of people assumed the subtext was AIDS; Cronenberg later said he was thinking in more general terms about the process of aging. It doesn't matter. The movie works on those levels.

Cronenberg is particularly ingenious at making the word flesh, and the ways he develops his ideas are often even scarier than the explicit horrors: "The Brood" is a masterpiece about the psychosomatic effects of rage turned inward, and about the legacy of emotional abuse passed down from one generation to the next; "Videodrome" is about technology as an extension of the body and the brain; "Dead Ringers" is about mutant forms of psychological and sexual intimacy; "Naked Lunch" is about a writer who has to internalize his own sexuality before he can create art.... Cronenberg is an organic, visionary thinker, storyteller, filmmaker. His movies have meat on their bones. Other filmmakers whose work strikes me as insubstantial lack this ability to flesh-out their pictures with compelling, animating ideas. Their plots are meticulously plotted, but they're skin-deep and there's nothing to sink your imaginative teeth into.

The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised. Although this "research evidence is compelling," wrote the WHO panel assigned to the topic, there was little evidence explaining how circumcision might reduce a man's risk of acquiring HIV.

Now comes an answer in a new study, published in the January 6 issue of PLoS ONE, which found that there are gross changes in the penis's microbiome following circumcision, suggesting that shifts in the bacterial environment could account, in part, for the differences in HIV infection. Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men, these bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect.

"We never knew that there were that many anaerobic bacteria on the uncircumcised penis before [this study]," says Ronald Gray, a reproductive epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and one of the lead authors on the current study. According to a 2006 survey, 56.1 percent of boys in the U.S. are circumcised. In its recommendation, the WHO panel stated that circumcision efforts would be most beneficial in parts of the world where less than 20 percent of boys are circumcised.

An earlier article posted to the NTEN blog did a great job covering data visualization generally, but what about data and places? More specifically, what about mapped data?

Creating display maps – in print or as digital images – is easier than ever before, and interactive, web-based mapping is all over the place, so to speak. We've re-discovered geography as a means of understanding our world, big time.

But, while some of us may "ooh" and "ahh" over a particularly cool-looking map, most people have a hard time actually reading and understanding maps. Some of this is a general cognitive truth, but a good part of that comes from poorly designed maps.

If our data is that important – and it is – we have to create visual design that delivers our messages to people.

Data can be so meaningless. The U.S. budget deficit, death counts, the total amount of carbon we produce all have one thing in common. The numbers by themselves are empty. They need context to make them real and living.

David McCandless, a data journalist and author, who spoke at TED about infographics, context, and relevance about the magic of visualization.

With visualization, data becomes a feast. Why? We are all visualizers.
Numbers are the language of the mind. With data visualization, we have two languages both talking at the same time.

Data can change our minds. Design helps solve problems. Information design is about solving information problems, seeing things we could not see before.

1. Finding data: 'Finding data' can involve anything from having expert knowledge and contacts to being able to use computer assisted reporting skills or, for some, specific technical skills such as MySQL or Python to gather the data for you.

2. Interrogating data: Interrogating data well means you need to have a good understanding of jargon and the wider context within which data sits, plus statistics - a familiarity with spreadsheets can help save a lot of time.

3. Visualising data: Visualising and mashing data has historically been the responsibility of designers and coders, but an increasing number of people with editorial backgrounds are trying their hand at both - partly because of a widening awareness of what is possible, and partly because of a lowering of the barriers to experimenting with them.

4. Mashing data: Tools such as ManyEyes for visualisation, and Yahoo! Pipes for mashups, have made it possible for me to get journalism students stuck in quickly with the possibilities - and many catch the data journalism bug soon after.

The Forgiveness Project works at a local, national and international level to help build a future free of conflict and violence by healing the wounds of the past.

By collecting and sharing people's stories, and delivering outreach programmes, The Forgiveness Project encourages and empowers people to explore the nature of forgiveness and alternatives to revenge.

Myth: Women are needy and clingy in relationships.
Fact: Women need more independence in relationships than men do. In a relationship, women are more likely than men – across every age group – to want their own interest, have personal space, their own bank account, regular nights out with their girlfriends and vacations on their own.

Myth: Guys don’t want to get married and have to be pushed into having kids.
Fact: Men are just as inclined to want to get married as women. In fact, 33% of men and 33% of women said they want to get married. And among singles without children under 18, more men (24%) than women (15%) say they want to have children.

Myth: Older people don’t care about sex.
Fact: Older men and women are less likely to compromise on either love or sexual attractiveness in order to have a committed relationship. In addition, older singles find sex while in a committed relationship more satisfying than other age groups.

Myth: Single parents have no social life.
Fact: Not only do single parents go on more dates than singles without kids but more single parents are currently dating someone (21%) than those without kids (16%).

Myth: Young singles today are promiscuous.
Fact: More people in the 21-34 age group say they have never had sex. To be precise, 24% of men and 23% of women ages 21-34 are virgins.

Myth: I love you implies a serious commitment.
Fact: 31% of singles believe that “I love you” means “I want you in my life” and 30% believe it means “I care about you.” Only 14% think it means “I want to spend the rest of my life with you” and 19% that “I want to have a committed relationship with you.”

Myth: Unemployed means unlucky in love.
Fact: 50% of singles would be open to dating someone unemployed if they found the person interesting.

Myth: Hook-ups never turn into relationships.
Fact: 36% of singles are open to a casual hook-up in the near future; and 54% of singles have had a one-night stand. 35% of singles have had a one-night stand that turned into a long term partnership.

In Europe and America, and probably in other cultures, the average age at which a girl first menstruates has gradually declined in recent historical times, the possible reasons being better nutrition and health (but see below). The age seems to have leveled off in America at the end of the 20th century, although the first appearance of other signs of sexual maturity, such as breasts and pubic hair, is still declining, possibly as a result of obesity and estrogen in the environment - for example, from discarded birth control pills.

RT @djrhienna: Your Zodiac Sign Is Not Wrong (Your Tattoo Is Still Ugly): ...

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment took pains to ensure that women were excluded from its protection, by introducing the word "male" into the constitution for the first time. But. Oh, god! There were substantial problems with the original text of the Fourteenth Amendment. And ever since the Supreme Court case of Reed v. Reed, 1971, the Fourteenth Amendment has provided an explicit basis for granting women equal rights as American citizens. (By the bye, one of Sally Reed's lawyers was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; I wonder whether Justice Ginsburg, who has been seen on an elephant with Justice Scalia, for the two are said to be close friends, will have anything to say about his recent remarks.)

In any case, the original rationale for excluding women from the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment did not hold and has not ever held any water from the moment it was ratified until now. All of which brings us to the backstory of the Fourteenth Amendment, and to the thorny history of gender-neutral language in English.

Prescriptive grammarians have been calling for "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun of choice since at least 1745, when a British schoolmistress named Anne Fisher laid down the law in A New Grammar. This Anne Fisher was a terrific mensch, an entrepreneur who ran her own school, including night classes for women ("betwixt the hours of Five and Eight at Night") — this, in the 18th century.