Stone Court

Chastity Bono is undergoing a sex change operation.

But what's really interesting is the name of his publicist.

It's Howard Bragman.

If I ever need a publicist, I sure hope I can get a Bragman (or Bragwoman).

That's the question everyone is asking since Elizabeth Adeney announced that she's expecting her first child at 66.

Ann at Feministing, among many others, points out the "double standard" between our treatment of older fathers as unremarkable, while engaging in excessive hand-wringing about older mothers. And of course she's right in a sense -- there is a lot of unspoken (and sometimes spoken) sexism in the criticism of Adeney. So, I have no patience for those who condemn her as "selfish" and the like -- and I wish her the very best of success with the challenge she has taken on.

All of that said, while I don't think we should judge Adeney, I do think it's fair to consider the question of "how old is too old" from the point of view of what we should encourage. If a future Elizabeth Adeney were to ask me whether she should try this, what should I tell her? I believe there is a way to answer the question of how old is too old, without partaking of sexist assumptions about who should and who should not have a baby.

There are many, many factors in deciding whether to have a baby. Still, I would suggest as a threshold consideration the likelihood that one parent would survive until the child reaches the age of majority, and I would suggest further that people consider not having a baby if that chance is less than 95%. 95% is, admittedly, arbitrary, but it is the standard figure used for computed statistical significance, i.e., for deciding when something is sufficiently sure to act upon it. All things considered, this is a fairly liberal test -- in the sense that getting a child to age 18 (rather than out of college, or even to 30) is a fairly modest goal, and in the sense that it ignores entirely the risk of parental illness and frailty. Still, it's objective, and sex-neutral (except to the extent that men have a greater risk of mortality).

Using this approach and standard life tables, we find that Adeney is taking a big risk. The chance that she will live to see her child's 18th birthday is only 56%.* Even giving her extra credit for good current health, it is hard to see how one could give the future Adeneys any encouragement for such an endeavor.

The way the math works, single parenthood is a big risk. The break-point for women (where their chance of surviving until their child turns 18) would be at age 40, while for men it is 33! In contrast, a male-female couple of 50 year olds has a 98% chance of one of the parents surviving until their baby reaches 18. Adeney would pass the test if she had a spouse (male) who was no older than his early 40s or one (female) who was up to 50.

Of course, life is not as simple as plugging our decisions into a calculator, but if someone asks me for my advice, I would encourage them to consider their odds.

*This figure uses U.S. life tables, even though Adeney is a U.K. citizen. It also treats her as 66, even though she will be almost 67 when the baby is born. Nonetheless, the figure is undoubtedly close to the real figure.

Roland Burris today:

Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race." (Emphasis added.)

Roland Burris's future tomb:

Burris already has a granite mausoleum erected under the heading "TRAIL BLAZER," followed by his achievement as "First African-American in Illinois to Become", the Chicago Tribune reports.

To be clear, while (like many) I think Burris has come off as a self-satisfied blowhard, that is not to say I think Burris should not be seated. To the contrary, my tentative view is that, while Akhil Amar has put forth a fairly persuasive (though hardly certain) argument that the Senate has the unreviewable power to refuse to seat Burris, for the Senate to exercise that power here, where there is no evidence of a corrupt bargain between Blagojevich and Burris, would be an abuse of that power and set a bad precedent for the future. Better to let Burris be seated and schedule a special election to replace him posthaste, which the Illinois Legislature retains the power to do under the Seventeenth Amendment.

Logic said this might happen, and via Melissa McEwan, it has:

The knuckleball — the fluttering, hard-to-hit pitch that's rare in the major leagues — is propelling a 16-year-old girl to the pros in Japan.

Eri Yoshida was inspired to learn how to throw the knuckler after seeing a video of Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield. On Monday, she broke the gender barrier by being drafted for an independent league team as Japan's first female professional baseball player.

And a classy response from the Red Sox' Tim Wakefield:

"It's funny that I've reached that point in my career that people want to emulate me," Wakefield said. "I'm glad I had people like the Niekros, Charlie Hough and Tom Candiotti that I could look up to. I am deeply humbled that it is me this time."

…"Hope I can see her pitch one day," Wakefield said in a message he texted to the Red Sox that was relayed to The Associated Press. "I'm honored that someone wants to become me. I wish her the best of luck. Maybe I can learn something from her."

This blog will now return to its usual practice of not praising members of the Red Sox under any circumstances.

When I first saw this news on TPM:

Lieberman Off the Hook?
The Obama transition team signals to TPM Election Central that Joe Lieberman is safe.
"We don't hold any grudges," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter
tells us.

... I was cranky, because I've been just dying to see Traitor Joe ridden out of town on a rail, frog-marched out of the caucus, tarred and feathered, etc.

But then I got thinking some more... and I think this may be another absolutely brilliant move on Obama's part.

Why brilliant, you ask?

Well, because it makes Obama a bigger guy than Lieberman. Lieberman, clearly, DOES hold grudges--which is a big part of what's gotten him where he is today. At the same time, Lieberman is, as we've said a thousand times, a sanctimonious son of a bitch who likes to think he's better than everyone else. But this clearly indicates that he's NOT better than Barack Obama.

Seriously, this is like some of those other really sly ways that Obama has managed to drive certain people (like Bill Clinton) absolutely batshit crazy without ever saying anything that anyone else would interpret as a bad thing to have said.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But I think Joe was angling to be deprived of his committee chairmanship and kicked out of the caucus so he could once again blame the Democrats, talk about how the party has left him, and play the martyr. This deprives him of that opportunity. How does he keep his head from exploding if Barack Obama is a better man than he?

For a cool million, the Obama campaign convinces Fox to ask Major League Baseball to move back the start time of Game 6 of the World Series. And the very Republican MLB agrees.

Money talks.

Related Post: You Gotta Lotta Bawls, Breathtaking Hypocrisy Edition