The Dish

“I hope to hell that when I do die somebody has the sense to just dump me in the river or something. Anything except sticking me in a goddam cemetary. People coming and putting a bunch of flowers on your stomach on Sunday, and all that crap. Who wants flowers when you’re dead? Nobody," – J.D. Salinger.

Haitian donations by money given in relation to country GDP (other methods of measuring donations at the link).

(Hat tip: MR)

A reader writes:

Based on your post about masturbation, I think your beliefs about masturbation are largely at odds with traditional Christian teaching. I’m surprised someone as smart as you are would not think more critically about this issue, especially since you are a self-described Christian.

Your argument that masturbation is without consequences and simply natural is wrong on a couple accounts. I think we can agree that erotic impulses and sexual appetites are indeed natural. These drives and appetites are not in themselves sinful, but an orthodox understanding is that they can be “passions” (that is, an earthly desire that pulls one away from Christ). These drives are only expressed in their fullness by procreation and in marriage. Masturbation, then is merely a capitulation to these appetites and this capitulation is sinful. The main sin is that masturbation (with minuscule exception) involves fantasy which is a distortion or absence of reality. In other words, it is a lie.

I expect that you know your fair share of the Bible, so it is a no-brainer about what Christianity from the beginning says about lies. They are unbecoming for the Christian because the Lord himself faced the truth of the ugliness and brokenness of life on this earth by hanging on the cross and we are called to be the same. Delusional actions and thinking (like the kind masturbation offers) is the sin. Also, since when is it permissible for a Christian to indulge in something just because everyone does it? Christians are called to be perfect in this world and that is the worthiest of pursuits. How do you reconcile these orthodox Christian teachings, especially after your post stating your admiration of John Paul’s “mortification of the flesh”? Would you say that abstaining from masturbation is helpful?

I think your unflinching belief that Catholics and Christians simply “don’t get it” and their argument holds no water is shrill and devoid of your usual critical thinking. Based on your many posts regarding Catholicism, I genuinely think that you are incapable of offering an ounce of validity to their argument. It is one thing to disagree and understand where the other side is coming from. It is another to claim that the other side is devoid of any sensible thought (or their arguments are “hilarious claptrap”). Come on, Andrew – that’s Malkinism right there.

Lastly, from a non-religious perspective, I think a conservative would hold that satisfying yourself whenever an appetite presents itself is no way for a society to behave. I think this endless pursuit of these drives (sexual, nutrition, fame, money, power) without restraint is a detriment to the society. You rail about Cheney’s desire for brutality, Republican’s lust for control, a nation unhealthy from gorging themselves and demanding pampered expensive treatment, the rise of STDs, etc, yet you find nothing wrong with men exhibiting no restrain in one aspect of their lives that they actually can control?  That is a bit much. I know you will disagree with this, but hopefully you can see that there is at least some connection.

My reader misses the focus of my posts, which was on the arguments of the new natural law. This does not take its cue from Augustinian or Pauline revulsion at the flesh and its ability to withdraw one from focusing on God, but posits, after Aquinas and Aristotle, that nature, as observed by reason alone, tells us something about the purpose of human behavior and life.

When something is as ubiquitous as masturbation, when we now understand that massive over-production of sperm is in fact an evolutionary strategy to maximize chances of reproduction, and when we also notice that even in a marital, procreative relationship, a wife’s nine months of pregnancy renders all that spousal sperm incapable of producing children … then one wonders why rubbing one out from time to time is so unnatural. In fact, one wonders why it’s such a big deal at all. I’m not endorsing masturbation as a life-style. I am endorsing it as a natural human function, as acceptable as brushing one’s teeth or taking a shit.

As for the distinction between fantasy and reality, the church allows for nocturnal emissions, which are, of course, fueled by exactly the fantasies that my reader thinks are illicit. In fact the natural fantasies of our dreams are often more divorced from reality than much of our pornography. And they are so natural they are involuntary.

Tyler Cowen predicts:

My theory is that Apple wants to [use the iPad to] capture a chunk of the revenue in this nation's enormous textbook market — high school, college, whatever.  Why lug all those books around?  The superior Apple graphics, colors, and fonts will support all of the textbook features which Kindle botches and destroys.  Apple takes a chunk of the market revenue, of course, plus they sell the iPads and some AT&T contracts.  There are lots of schoolkids in the world.

That sure makes more sense than rescuing newspapers. Sonny Bunch has further thoughts.

James Dobson recently left Focus On The Family to focus on his own radio show. In his Facebook announcement, he declared that Americans “are in a moral decline of shocking dimensions” that threatens our “very existence.” Pete Wehner scratches his head:

In fact, a great deal of empirical evidence argues that, if anything, we are in the midst of a social and cultural re-norming of some significance. For example, on issues of particular concern to Dobson—abortion and divorce—we have made great strides. The number of abortions performed annually in the United States has dropped to a level not seen since [Roe v. Wade]. The divorce rate, meanwhile, is now at its lowest level in decades.

There is more good news.

Since the high-water mark of 1994, the national welfare caseload has declined by around 60 percent. Teen drug use has declined significantly since the 1990s; so has the birth rate for teenagers aged 15 to 19. The number of high-school students who have reported ever having sexual intercourse has dropped as well. Teen use of alcohol and binge drinking have also fallen sharply. (For more, see here.)

That reality, of course, does not rile a radio audience.

"I know I can leave this or any other matter quite to your discretion, Bessie; my God, you are as admirable as you are lovable! As well as not sending him any more tablets with lines for his stories, also absolutely do not send him any tablets with very flimsy paper, such as onion skin, as he merely drops this kind in the garbage can for general disposal outside the bungalow. This is wasteful, to be sure, but I would appreciate it if you did not ask me to step in a delicate matter of this kind. I am hesitant to say that certain kinds of waste do not offend me; indeed, certain kinds of waste tend to thrill me to the marrow.

Also worth keeping in mind, it is this chap's leonine devotion to his literary implements, I give you my word of honor, that he will eventually cause of his utter release, with honor and happiness, from this enchanting vale of tears, laughter, redeeming human love, affection, and courtesy. With 50,000 additional kisses from the two looming pests of Bungalow 7 who love you, Most cordially, S. G. " – "Hapworth 16, 1924," Salinger's last published work, from the June 19, 1965 issue of The New Yorker.

A collection of other stories here and here.

In today's culture of pornographic celebrity, in which fame is the supreme currency, Salinger's pursuit of total anonymity remains an inspiration, a reminder of what matters, and a reminder of what disappears.

Shannon Minter analyzes the Prop 8 trial:

What stands out the most after having seen all the witnesses on both sides is how overwhelmingly one-sided the evidence in this case turned out to be.  The plaintiffs, represented by some  of the most skilled attorneys in the country, laid out a well-crafted, meticulous case, backed by the testimony of half a dozen of the most respected historians, psychologists, economists, and political scientists who study marriage, sexual orientation, and child development. 

Using the Prop 8 proponents' own outrageous and inflammatory words, ads, and emails, the plaintiffs powerfully demonstrated that Prop 8 was a direct product of hostility, fear-mongering, and demonization of lesbians and gay men.  And through the deeply moving testimony of the plaintiffs and other members of our community, they proved beyond question that denying same-sex couples the right to marry causes great harm to LGBT people and their children.  

Stacked up against this mountain of facts, scholarship, and science, the Prop 8 proponents – though represented by fine attorneys – were not able to come forward with a case of their own.  Before trial, they dropped nearly every witness they had planned to present and relied entirely on two poorly qualified, ill-prepared expert witnesses, neither of whom was able to establish that banning same-sex couples from getting married has any rational or legitimate purpose relating to procreation, child rearing, tradition, or any of the other justifications that have been offered in the past in support of anti-gay discrimination.  In fact, nearly all of the defendants' experts agreed with the plaintiffs that marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples and their families in many real, tangible ways.

This rhetorical style could easily have come out of Maggie's mouth:

You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people.

And, of course, Thatcher presided over a real socialist healthcare system and in eleven years never questioned its existence. Not many Republicans will tell you that.

Gates will make a major announcement Tuesday on ending discrimination and persecution of gay and lesbian servicemembers. I'm sorry if I cannot yet believe it. I've been fighting for this for 22 years and have seen it slip away so often. I watched the SOTU last night with Aaron and a good friend who's a former Green Beret; my first boyfriend was in the airforce. I've met and known so many fine men and women in the US military who are gay and as patriotic and as dedicated as anyone else. To have this hideous bigoted taint removed from their service is both long overdue and yet also overwhelming.

Greenwald rightly notes Alito's breach of etiquette last night:

On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow — a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President — with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite.  Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

Andrew Cohen notes the president's important qualification, before his legitimate discussion of a political issue:

With all due deference to separation of powers …

Jan Crawford's remarks were indeed asinine.