Month: March 2011

Greg Scoblete notices that "none of [the calls for intervention in Libya] hinge on America's national security interests":

Notice that Senator Kerry's case hinges exclusively on how the U.S. looks or is perceived. He's even scornful of public "reticence" – as if it were a bad thing! There is no indication, or argument, that the lives of Americans or core interests are in danger. 

Marc Lynch's new post, which the Dish linked to yesterday, makes a more convincing case for doing something to topple Qaddafi – although Lynch now has second thoughts about a no-fly zone:

The bloody stalemate in Libya has drained away the carnival atmosphere from the Arab upheavals — something which may not be displeasing to many of the other Arab leaders, despite their distaste for Qaddafi.   Arabs who yearn to be part of the Tahrir Square celebrations may be less excited to be part of a brutal, grinding struggle against entrenched security forces — a lesson which I suspect that Arab leaders are quietly encouraging.  But they may have miscalculated.   If force fails here, it may be seen to fail everywhere … which is one more reason to make sure that it does in fact fail. 

According to Rasmussen, the vast majority of Americans are against intervention.

A reader writes:

I just wanted to push back a bit at what seems to be the prevailing attitude in your post and the reader emails you've published.  While I know it's not the path for everyone, I waited to have sex until I was married and don't regret it a bit.  Yes, I'm an evangelical Christian; no, I'm not a Christianist (according to the definitions you've given – for example, I think creationism is a ridiculous thing to teach in schools, and think abstinence-only sex "education" shouldn't be dignified with the term).  I don't think waiting, or marrying your first sexual parter, is necessarily naive or foolish. 

I thought (and prayed) long and hard about marrying my husband, and I did so knowing that we might not be perfectly matched sexually – although I knew I thought he was hot, and he clearly was of the same opinion about me. And, in fact, due to some medical trouble, our sex life has been a bit rocky at times. But we respect each other, and are committed to each other, and we work through it.  And it's worth it!  Even if I knew I was more sexually compatible with someone else (whatever that means), I love my husband and would never wish for a different partner.

I know it's not the prevailing paradigm, but those who travel this path shouldn't be dismissed as naive, or doomed to a subpar marriage, or what-have-you.  Happy and satisfied women (and men) do exist who were virgins at marriage!

Amen and congrats. I certainly do not mean to dismiss this decision as "naive" – just not the best idea for everyone. Another writes:

OK, you think it's "rare in practice." But you're a gay man. I know a few gay male couples that seem to me completely monogamous  – couples who have been married in all but the legal sense for decades. But you must admit that the gay male culture over your lifetime has not been much into monogamy. (Lesbians are a different story.)

I don't think faithful straight marriages are at all "rare in practice." Are they the majority in this country? I don't know. But they're certainly in the tens of millions. If that were a species, you would not call it "endangered."

There's a spectrum obviously. And the gay and lesbian contrasts are revealing. They are revealing because they show the gendered basis of much of this. Men are less likely to be monogamous in relationships (and marriage) than women, and the younger the man and the higher his testosterone, the less monogamous he is likely to be. I state this merely as an observation, but it buttresses Aristotle's view that men should marry younger women to better synchronize their mutual needs. Another:

"Rare in practice." According to whom? The studies I've seen in the US show a minority have engaged in extramarital affairs. And I don't see any sort of sophisticated "complexity" in countenancing adultery. No less than Christ himself (and Paul) condemned it. Are they too "simple" to understand the "complexities" of unfaithfulness? A lifelong commitment to a spouse is upheld by Christ and Paul because it is like unto our commitment to God. An open relationship necessarily undermines the trust necessary to uphold the commitment. And really, that's what Ross is talking about – that there is greater fulfillment in sexual fidelity.

Now, no one disputes that people fall short of the ideal, and they should be treated with mercy when they do (let he who has not sinned throw the first stone, etc), but to argue there are some sort of nuance here that should temper the upholding marital fidelity as a core social goal is just pure sophistry.

The trouble is we do not and almost certainly could never get reliable statistics on this. And of course there are countless cases of happy marriages along the lines Ross believes in. I'm glad a reader bore witness to that. I might add that Ross' original column relies on inherently subjective measurements like self-reported "happiness" that are just as hard to pin down exactly. And that measuring monogamy can be extremely difficult.

Hard to beat John Ellis's brutal honesty. I loved this on the downside of Mitch Daniels:

Looks like the President's barber, message depressing, cross-wise with social conservatives, unclear where he stands on national security issues.

Through the haze, a Libyan tipping point? Money quote:

Those few who have managed to get inside have described horrific scenes including the targeting of a large protest march and soldiers firing on civilians. "Zawiyah has been torn down to ashes," said one source. A second said the town had been "flattened". Other witnesses said the town centre had come under rocket fire.

But rebels still control its center, apparently.

Anderson Cooper is on the case.

A reader writes:

I’ve been a loyal reader of your blog for going on seven years now and rarely go a day without reading it.  Until now, I have never mustered the courage to write to you, lest my ignorance on the issues you discuss be laid bare.  But I feel compelled at this point to write and make a simple request:  Please, for the love of God, stop with the beards.  Just stop. 

I know it’s your blog and you will write about whatever you want, but I’m sure I’m not the only reader who can’t take it anymore.  You can whine and moan all you like, but in this day and age, beards are for only for you, tragically uncool hipsters, select Hollywood elite, and that unfortunate pitcher on the Giants who didn’t read the directions on his Just For Men bottle properly.

A riveting Youtube video showing how the HQ of the secret police was raided by Egyptians three days ago. It gains momentum after the dark beginning.

NPR is run by liberals. Exclusive.

“The reality of education is that people learn from people they love. But if you mention the word love at a congressional hearing, they look at you like you’re Oprah,” – David Brooks, interviewed on NPR.

A reader writes:

There's more to honor code?  The counter culture movement of the 60's.  My mom went to BYU in the late 60's (and dad was off at Vietnam) and she was not allowed to wear pants on campus.  She and her friends got around this by wearing trench coats and rolling up their pants.  A lifelong mormon (and BYU washout), I didn't know the full history of the honor code till I went here. Guess what?  The honor code was implemented in the 60s, as a reaction to the dirty long hairs running along the coast:  

Although previous BYU presidents had emphasized or de-emphasized adherence to moral standards according to their particular ideological bent, the trend during the 1960s towards greater regimentation was largely a reaction of President Ernest L. Wilkinson to developments on other American college campuses during the same era, when traditional western values were being questioned by students nationwide.