Is this merely a more complicated way to say “why buy the cow…

The New Neo Posted on by

…when you can get the milk for free?”

An excerpt:

If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it’s all thanks to supply and demand…

As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships…commences only when women decide it does. And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren’t asking for much in return these days””the market “price” of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options””more supply for his elevated demand””it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It’s not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it’s that there’s a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet””on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings””women outnumber men by significant margins.

Somehow I think this article may engender a fair amount of heated discussion.

What about Liz Cheney?

The New Neo Posted on by

In an earlier thread on Palin-hatred, a discussion ensued in the comments section about the fact that a great many conservative female politicians are hated, not just Palin. Michelle Bachmann, for example.

Commenter “LAG” asked a challenging question:

For the sake of a scientific test that holds unimportant variables steady, can anyone point out a single counter-balancing example, i.e. is there anywhere to be found a conservative woman with all the right (Ivy League education, etc) credentials who is or isn’t despised?

First, a little clarification on the meaning of the word “despised,” “to regard with contempt or scorn.” That implies not just hatred, but a looking down from above, a hierarchy in which the despiser believes the despisee to be not only intensely dislikable but also markedly inferior. That describes liberal attitudes towards both Palin and Bachmann.

And so I offer as a possible candidate for a non-despised conservative woman: Liz Cheney. Now my guess is that she isn’t intensely hated yet only because she flies somewhat under the radar screen at the moment, and that if she ever became more popular or ran for office it might be different and she would draw a huge amount of ire. They certainly hated her father.

But I don’t think they despised him; his formidable intellect was respected, and I think it would be that way with his daughter, who is low-key in her delivery, attractive but not glam, articulate, and hyper-intelligent. She would be seen by the left as the evil genius rather than the evil stupidhead, rather like the difference between her father and GW Bush in their eyes.

Palin, of course, would be in the Bush position, squared. Or perhaps cubed.

For neocons: Bolton’s democracy primer on Egypt

The New Neo Posted on by

John Bolton has written an article suggesting ways in which liberal democracy (rather than the siren song of “one person, one vote, one time,” or Islamiscist control) could come to Egypt, and perhaps even other countries in the Middle East.

Neocon thought is often ridiculed as being the simplistic idea that all you need is the right to vote, and all will be well. That’s not it at all, as I’ve devoted quite a few words to explaining. Bolton offers quite a few more:

…[T]oday’s pressing question for Egypt is what steps the new military rulers should take. First, there should not be a rush to elections. It was a fatal mistake for Palestinians when the Bush Administration, reading supposedly irrefutable polls that Hamas could not win, scheduled elections in 2006 that allowed Hamas to do just that. Democracy is a culture, a way of life, as Mill and Kirkpatrick recognised, not simply the counting of votes. Any realistic assessment of Egypt’s “opposition” shows it to be weak, disorganised, and indifferently led. Moving to early elections, as the Muslim Brotherhood wants, will not bring the Age of Aquarius, but only benefit those factions with existing political infrastructures, which is a formula for domination by the Brotherhood. Far better to proceed when the true democrats are ready, which may not be soon enough for some, but which is unambiguously the more pro-democratic course.

Second, participation in the elections, whenever scheduled, should be limited to real political parties. From Mussolini to Putin, from Hamas to Hezbollah, terrorists, totalitarians and their ilk masquerading as political parties do not really believe in representative government. Banning such faux-democrats from participating in the legitimate political process until they become true political parties is entirely legitimate, and may well be critical to avert disaster. America did so for decades by outlawing the Communist Party, as post-World War II Germany did with the National Socialists. Thus, for President Obama to say, as he did, that the transition “must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table” is not only naive, but fundamentally dangerous.

Third, the West should provide material assistance to those truly committed to a free and open society. In days of yore, the United States supplied extensive clandestine assistance to prevent communist takeovers in post-World War II elections in France, Italy and elsewhere. Undoubtedly, the Obama Administration is too fastidious for such Cold War-style behaviour, but perhaps overt, democratic institution-building assistance is not too much to ask. Advocates of doing nothing will argue that Western assistance, overt or covert, will “taint” the real democrats, and should therefore be avoided. Of course, there are always excuses for doing nothing. At a minimum, we should let Egyptians themselves decide whether they will be “tainted” with outside assistance; if they can live with the taint, so should we.

Fourth, Egypt’s military must restore and extend stability, setting an example throughout the Middle East, thereby allowing whatever progress toward a truly democratic culture to emerge. Egypt’s military will require political space in the months ahead. The Pentagon’s continuing close relationship with Egypt’s military should give us confidence that the right message about civilian control over the military is getting through. One of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’ first announcements was that it would honour Egypt’s international obligations, presumably including Camp David. This is important and reassuring internationally, but hardly dispositive of what future governments will do.

None of this is at all easy (even with behind-the-scenes pressure and influence), and none is bound to succeed. What’s more, Egypt is probably a walk in the park compared to Libya if the rebels manage to depose Qaddafi. Paradoxically, if the Iranian opposition were somehow successful in getting rid of the mullahs, Iran might even have the best chance of becoming the closest thing to a liberal democracy in a Muslim country in the region (including the nascent and tenuous democracy in Iraq), simply because its people have had such a long and gut-wrenching experience of enduring the opposite after a revolution that briefly promised otherwise.

Wisconsin House Republicans pass public worker union bill

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s been a lot of theater so far in the Wisconsin public worker union budget fight, and last night there was even more drama, as Republicans in the House ended the lengthy Democratic debate and forced a quick vote in the wee hours of the morning.

The result was a foregone conclusion: the bill passed. The real problem has always been in the Senate, where a quorum of 3/5 is necessary and Democrats have gone AWOL to avoid giving Republicans the opportunity to vote on the bill and pass it.

That’s still unresolved, and no doubt the quick action by the Republicans last night was to show that Republicans can play tough, too. The play continues…

Semi-truth: “The Social Network”

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I watched the movie “The Social Network,” the story of Mark Zuckerberg and his creation of Facebook, which featured his various and sundry betrayals of former friends, who later sued and won settlements against him.

Ironic, of course, because Facebook is all about keeping in touch with friends. But, as its ads note, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”

The mostly-praised movie was okay, fast-paced and fairly entertaining, featuring snappy dialogue while it raises (and never answers) various moral, ethical, and legal questions. It also is, of course, about real people and real events, although somewhat fictionalized.

That’s what makes it both interesting and annoying in equal measure, at least to me. What’s fiction and what’s truth? I have always been disturbed by the indiscriminate blending of the two, and the resultant confusion of one for the other. How many people will see the movie and come away from it convinced that it depicts what actually happened? How many people will care?

In a way, whether one thinks Mack Zuckerberg is every bit as dipshitty a back-stabber as in the movie, or an even worse one, or a slightly nicer guy, is not of much import to anyone other than Zuckerberg, family, friends, and multiple (that’s a pun, by the way) ex-friends and their lawyers. But inaccuracies bug me nevertheless; I’d much rather the film used pseudonyms to make it crystal clear this is a work of fiction—but of course, then it would lose almost all of its gossipy appeal.

Zuckerberg is on record as saying:

…that the film portrayed his motivations for creating Facebook inaccurately; instead of an effort to “get girls”, he says he created the site because he enjoys “building things”. However, he added that the film accurately depicted his real-life wardrobe, saying, “It’s interesting the stuff that they focused on getting right ”“ like every single shirt and fleece they had in that movie is actually a shirt or fleece that I own.”

Screenwriter Sorkin (of “The West Wing”) has said, “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling. What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy’s sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?” Sound familiar?

But I’m a lot more upset when filmmakers such as Oliver Stone take liberties with far more important history, and their revisions and fantasies become real history in the mind of many. How many, I have no idea; certainly not everyone who watches their creations. But enough to make some sort of difference, I believe.

There’s no way to block this sort of artistic license, and no way I’d wish to do so. What I really wish is that history were taught in such a way as to make people more impervious to those who would play fast and loose with it.

Fixed

The New Neo Posted on by

If some of you saw a problem with the comments here this afternoon, I just want you to know it’s been fixed and everything seems to be working just fine now.

Notes from Chairman Khomeini: on church and state

The New Neo Posted on by

I keep revisiting events in Iran in 1979, as a reminder of what can happen in those other countries in upheaval today in the Muslim world (which is not necessarily what will happen, of course).

Here are some selected quotes from the Ayatollah Khomeini, whose utterances before his return to Iran in 1979 were quite different from his utterances after his return.

Just as an example, in November of 1978 he said, “Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system.” Then on his return to Iran about a year later: “I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government.”

Here’s another later quote:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!

Straight from the horse’s mouth: Islam, not a religion of peace.

Here’s another that chills the blood, and is meant to:

There is no room for play in Islam … It is deadly serious about everything.

The following is not a quote from Khomeini, but I include it because it so perfectly illustrates the Orwellian madness/stupidity/deception/amorality (take your pick, or take them all) of so many on the left in their confrontation with totalitarian tyranny of the non-Western variety. It was spoken on the occasion of Khomeini’s death in 1989:

The freedom-lovers of the world mourn the sad demise of Imam Khomeini.

The speaker was Ernesto Cardenal, “Nicaraguan combatant, scholar, poet, and liberation theologian.” “Liberation theologian” could be a description of how Khomeini regarded himself, as well, so it’s not so very surprising that Cardenal would see him as a kindred spirit. Cardenal is a Catholic priest, a man of the left who affiliated himself back in the 70s and 80s with the Sandinistas in his native Nicaragua:

On 19 July 1979, immediately after the Fall of Managua, [Cardenal] was named Minister of Culture by the new Sandinista regime. He occupied this office until 1987, when his ministry was closed owing to economic reasons. When Pope John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly scolded Cardenal, who knelt before him, on the Managua airport runway, for resisting his order to resign from the government. The Pope admonished Cardenal: Usted tiene que arreglar sus asuntos con la Iglesia (“You must make good your dealings with the Church”).

One of the doctrines Khomeini was noted for was his idea that Islam should be closely intertwined with politics. This philosophy represented a break with most of his immediate predecessors. Khomeini fully lived out his own beliefs, beginning with his triumphant return to Iran in 1979. The deadly serious repercussions of that decidedly unplayful philosophy are still being felt by the Iranian people today.

[NOTE: This all is another excellent reminder of the remarkable prescience and wisdom of our own founding fathers, who were not against religion itself but who were profoundly against the establishment of a state religion, even a seemingly benign one. ]

Solway on his Obama fixation

The New Neo Posted on by

David Solway is a Canadian poet who used to be a man of the “soft” left.

He was happy there. But, as with many, 9/11 began for him a period of learning, reading, thinking, and ultimately revising his political opinions. That change in turn has led to the severing of relationships with many of his liberal friends—not his doing, but theirs.

Sound familiar? Sure does to me.

Now Solway offers this meditation on how it was that he started out liking and even admiring Obama, and ended up not trusting a word the man says. He says he has written of:

Obama as a defective scholar, as a greedy restaurateur, as a mad apologist, as a Science Fiction Destructor, as a sorcerer’s apprentice, as a sly feline, as a flamboyant orchid, as President Stuxnet, as an arboreal lycopod, as an arrogant college sophomore with failing grades, as a Burgher of Schilda, as the Playboy of the Western World, as the Pied Piper, as Zartan who assumes the identity of the president in the film G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, as the reincarnation of the false messiah Sabbatai Zevi, and more. I have even suffered nightmares in which he appears like a spook out of the yawning earth to haunt a terrified people.

Solway is stunned that so many intellectuals and friends of his have exhibited such fawning admiration for Obama, which persists for many in the absence of any evidence to support it. But as a poet, he must know how often that’s the way of love.

Obama’s lips are sealed on Libya

The New Neo Posted on by

But why?

The most benign interpretation is that he’s learned that anything he does is criticized as well as ineffectual, and so he’s keeping his mouth shut.

The in-between interpretation is that he has no idea what would be best to say, and so he’s keeping his mouth shut.

The least benign interpretation is that Egypt was an ally and Libya is not, so it was a no-brainer to support the opposition in the first case and somewhat more difficult to choose sides in the second.