Month: July 2010

Joe Klein wants to make the public sector less attractive:

It is time to revise the public pension system. There aren't so many high-paying manufacturing jobs anymore; the relative security of government work doesn't need to be augmented by ridiculously obstruse procedures for firing incompetents or by 20-year pension packages. A nice 401k, with healthy matching funds, should be sufficient.

Lindsay Beyerstein joins the debate about prenatal dex and lesbianism:

If you wanted to be a crackpot about it, you could just as easily argue that dex is a conspiracy to turn boys gay. Prenatal dex makes male rats more receptive to being mounted by other males. Some studies have shown that maternal stress during pregnancy predisposes male offspring to homosexuality. Some researchers think this effect could be caused by steroids like dex. Dreger and Dan Savage may not know the literature, but you can be sure that endocrinologists are well aware of these theories.

John Murphy reviews Sex at Dawn:

[The authors] don’t dispense pat predictions about how “a more relaxed and tolerant approach to fidelity” might play out….Ryan and Jethá compare the slow advances granted to gay rights and same-sex marriage. Ryan and Jethá realize the odds against such tolerance attained by advocates of “free love”, however ethically conceived by those daringly liberated.

Eric Michael Johnson also levels judgment. Several readers have found this line of argument wanting. A reader writes:

I was amused by this item, particularly by the suggestion that tolerance of sexual infidelity might actually strengthen relationships.  My experience, admittedly narrow, suggests that this is untrue.

The speculation that women may be less tolerant of infidelity (or more likely to be faithful)  because they have been culturally punished for it for so long is interesting.  However, it is also possible that women are less tolerant because they have been physically harmed by it.  The stories of women who have contracted syphillis from unfaithful husbands are plentiful, and with the modern array of STDs women have all the more reason to hope and expect that their partners will eschew the occasional fling with someone else–whether male or female.  

Another adds:

If someone really wants to make a genetic argument, we should look at the great apes. Lo and behold, they have a completely different sexual norm. An alpha male has a harem of females. Perhaps women should just accept their role in life; it's in our genes. The real argument seems to be that genetics, even if they're meaningful, are nowhere near the whole story. Are we to believe that birds distinguish making love to one another from a random fling?

Greenwald defends Nazi comparisons:

The very notion that a major 20th Century event like German aggression is off-limits in political discussions is both arbitrary and anti-intellectual in the extreme.  There simply are instances where such comparisons uniquely illuminate important truths:  recall, for example, Andrew Sullivan's consequential discovery of the stark similarities between the Bush/Cheney and Gestapo "enhanced interrogation" documents, both in terms of approved tactics and "justifications."  To demand that German crimes be treated as sacred and unmentionable is to deprive our discourse of critical truths.

But this prohibition is even more odious than that.  A primary point of the Nuremberg Trials was to seize on the extraordinary horror of what the Germans did in order to set forth general principles to be applied not only to the individual war criminals before the tribunal, but more important, to all countries in the future. 

Brink Lindsey demolishes AEI President Arthur Brooks's new book:

Brooks' book isn't about policy; it's about ideology and how to engage in politics. And it is, I'm sorry to say, a thoroughly wrongheaded way to approach these questions. The attempt to turn economic policy disputes into a populist cultural crusade rests on deep-seated confusion about the nature of those disputes and how best to effect constructive policy change. Brooks’ key move is to cast our “free enterprise system” as an instance of American exceptionalism — in contrast to the social democracy of Europe and other advanced nations. Thus, economic policy becomes fodder for cultural politics: Supporters of free markets are defending a unique and precious American heritage, while members of the “30 percent coalition” have thrown in with the foreigners — worst of all, with effete, decadent Europeans.

Why this is utterly off-base:

Plenty of European countries have markets about as free as those in the land of the free. Look at the ratings provided by the annual Economic Freedom of the World report, co-published by the Cato Institute. On four broad categories of economic freedom — legal structure and security of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally; and regulation — the United States was slightly “freer” than Sweden, the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland. Meanwhile, Ireland, the Netherlands and, by a wide margin, Denmark were found to have freer markets. Note that the two highest scorers have two of the biggest welfare states in the world — which just goes to show that blurring issues of regulation and redistribution, as Brooks tries to do, leads to intellectual confusion.

I think what Arthur is doing is trying to reset to the 1980s as if the 1990s and the 2000s had never happened. This is a classic piece of abstract ideology, not political engagement with reality.

At least that's the picture he presents to Jon Rauch.

James McWilliams is aghast that sustainable farming advocates are against petri dish meat:

The politics of meat is the politics of self interest—no matter what side of the debate one is on—and, as is always the case, everyone's interest is fiercely protected except that of the animals. Just as corn and soy are the bread and butter of Big Ag, the persistence of small, traditionally conceptualized farms practicing time honored agricultural techniques is the sine qua non of the sustainable food movement. Without these small family farms, and without animals being humanely raised to be slaughtered, the movement's turf would shrink. The knowledge that science and technology could have the potential to fundamentally redefine (and improve) the very agricultural tradition that so many organizations are designed to protect is knowledge we can hardly expect interested parties to evaluate in fair terms. My guess is that it probably terrifies them.

A reader writes:

To paraphrase Barry Corbin in WarGames, piss on a spark plug if you think it will help.  Of course you should pray for Hitchens, if you think it will accomplish anything.  Or do it if it makes you feel better, which is what I think prayer is really good for. It doesn't require anything from him, not a signature or thumbprint or even his assent.  It also does not require his knowledge.  And there is Biblical support for always praying in secret: "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."  Matthew 6:6.

Another writes:

I was intrigued to read your follow-up post with the cancer expert's empirical data: no effect from undisclosed prayer, but a negative impact from the mockery.  Upsetting an ill person wouldn't seem to be the best prescription for his welfare.  On the other hand, I do think that Hitchens is that rare person with the nerve and strength of conviction not to be adversely affected by such undesired gestures.  Reminds me of the dying Thoreau's familiar response to a friend's intercessionary inquiry as to whether he had made his peace with god:  "We've never quarreled."

Another:

I have cancer.  I found this out 3 weeks ago.  In that time I have grieved like I have rarely grieved. 

I have pitied myself in great quantities.  I have questioned the lifestyle and choices I have made over the years.  All these emotions add to the overwhelming feeling of despair.  The best way to combat that is to engage with loved ones.  Reach out to people you know.  Let them know what is going on.  The support of my family and friends brings me back from …. whatever. 

I am also a so-called non-believer. Many have shared their thoughts of prayer for me.  I am not offended by these gestures.  I welcome each and every one.  That and just the simple act of reaching out to me is worth as much as the specialists, surgeons and medicines I will be experiencing over the next several months.  I see their act as a show of caring and however way they want to show it is fine by me.

And you are spot on about the "treating as a tender soul" thing.  Engage me in something, anything, other than my cancer.

Todd May celebrates it:

There is much that might be said about friendships. They allow us to see ourselves from the perspective of another. They open up new interests or deepen current ones. They offer us support during difficult periods in our lives. The aspect of friendship that I would like to focus on is its non-economic character. Although we benefit from our close friendships, these friendships are not a matter of calculable gain and loss. While we draw pleasure from them, they are not a matter solely of consuming pleasure. And while the time we spend with our friends and the favors we do for them are often reciprocated in an informal way, we do not spend that time or offer those favors in view of the reciprocation that might ensue.

Friendships follow a rhythm that is distinct from that of either consumer or entrepreneurial relationships. This is at once their deepest and most fragile characteristic.

And that is why I wrote a book arguing that the virtue of friendship is the virtue closest to true human freedom.