Showing posts with label decline and fall of Western civilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decline and fall of Western civilization. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2011

Not A Very Large Sample

Not A Very Large Sample

But it still doesn't say much for the situation, especially when you look at the average age they started. From the December 2, 2009 Telegraph:
Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.
But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.
“We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn't find any.”
Although hampered in its original aim, the study did examined the habits of those young men who used pornography – which would appear to be all of them.
Prof Lajeunesse interviewed 20 heterosexual male university students who consumed pornography, and found on average, they first watched pornography when they were 10 years old.

This really is Generation Porn.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Yet Another Reason For Students Not To Use Wikipedia

Yet Another Reason For Students Not To Use Wikipedia

One of the reasons that I tell students not use Wikipedia when doing research papers is that it is only as accurate as the people editing the articles.  For some subjects, this isn't a problem; there's no political significance to the date when Cretans go from Bronze Age to Iron Age, or Newton's universal law of gravitation equation.  In the non-political areas, Wikipedia is pretty darn impressive.  I often use it myself as a "first look," but I don't rely on Wikipedia alone.

The problem is in any area of history, there is a very real risk that Wikipedia's entries have been politically motivated, or reflects honest but ignorant editors.  Trusting Wikipedia as a source is less than ideal.  (Of course, even serious published books are often wrong, as I have pointed out before.)

There is a new and troubling scandal involving child pornography and Wikipedia.  The first article, from April 27, 2010 Fox News, is troubling:
The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says, and he's imploring the FBI to investigate.

 Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons (the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote) is rife with renderings of children performing sexual acts.

Sanger sent a letter to the FBI earlier this month outlining his concerns and identifying two specific Wikimedia Commons categories he believes violate federal obscenity law.
Now, there was an update to the article that indicated:
In response to the content mentioned in Larry Sanger’s letter to the FBI, Moeller wrote:

“It’s a false claim related largely to some historic early 20th century drawings, as described in the summary published by the Wikipedia Signpost. The Wikimedia Foundation’s General Counsel examined the drawings and concluded that they do not violate federal laws; we have not received any communication from the FBI to the contrary, and when and if we are asked by authorities to remove images that are illegal, we will do so.”
This is a plausible claim. There are certain situations where really gruesome and awful stuff needs to be available for scientific or scholarly research. As an example, some years ago, I was at a friend's house who had a truly disgusting book. It was a diagnostic manual for identifying child sexual abuse, with photographs. It was enough to make me ill, and I didn't need more than a quick flip through it to know that I didn't need to look at it anymore.

It is plausible that Wikipedia had some material of historic significance--but I confess that having such material online seems quite questionable.  Once upon a time, some of the most grotesque history of the twelve Caesars, when translated into English, would leave certain sections in Greek, as a way of limiting access to a relatively small subset of highly educated people.  (Then Bob Guccione decided to make a movie about Caligula, making this horrible stuff available to those with too little sense.)  Not everything that is necessary for serious research has to be online--and there is some material that should not be online.  Child pornography is one of those examples.

But what troubles me is what happened when Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, had the unmitigated nerve to take gobs of this horrifying stuff online.  From May 14, 2010 Fox News:

After much pressure from within the Wikipedia community, co-founder Jimmy Wales has relinquished his top-level control over the encyclopedia's content, as well as all of its parent company's projects.

Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wales is no longer able to delete files, remove administrators, assign projects or edit any content, sources say. Essentially, they say, he has gone from having free reign over the content and people involved in the websites to having the same capabilities of a low-level administrator.

“He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,” a source told FoxNews.com.

When asked who was in charge now, the source said, “No one. It’s chaos.”

Wales deleted gobs of this trash--and managed to infuriate the rest of the Wikipedia community--so much so that he no longer has any control.  Now, I can't tell if Jimmy Wales did this because he was repulsed by the prospect that his creation was carrying child pornography, or simply that he recognized that it was bad publicity for what is fundamentally a neat and useful idea. But the reaction of the Wikimedia "community" makes me wonder what sort of a community this is.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Mackenzie Philips

Mackenzie Philips

I remember when the actress Mackenzie Philips (son of John Philips of the Mamas and the Papas) was fired from her job on One Day at a Time. This was one of my favorite TV shows in the late 1970s, at least partly because Valerie Bertinelli was so darn cute and funny! Philips' firing seemed to related to her widely publicized drug problems at the time. Now Philips has published a "too much information" account of being raped by father the night before her wedding. This September 24, 2009 Daily Mail article is absolutely nauseating--including her account of when Daddy introduced her to heroin, and missed a vein in her arm.

One of the most troubling aspects of what the 1960s generation bequeathed to America was the widespread acceptance of drug and alcohol abuse. Philips described how Daddy showed her how to roll joints at 10, and introduced her to cocaine at 11. Where I lived in Sonoma County, this type of childrearing was, if not the norm, at least not all that unusual.

Unfortunately, intoxication tends to produce all sorts of very destructive behaviors, simply because it removes inhibitions--and there's a lot to said for being inhibited, when you look at how John Philips treated his daughter.

She said her father knew it could be his child, so he paid for the abortion.

‘My father was not a bad man. He was kind of a testament to what drugs and alcohol - in huge quantities - can do to a person's priorities. Their motives,’ she said. ‘I don't hate him. I understand that he was a very tortured man, and he sort of passed that torture down to me.’

I keep hoping that Americans wake up and decide to walk away from the culture of intoxication and casual depravity. But from what I see, it is gaining.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Greatest Understatement of the Year

Greatest Understatement of the Year

My friend R.S. McCain links to an article about a new doll described on Gizmodo. McCain outraged; Gizmodo engages in one of the most powerful understatements of the year:
Pole Dancer Doll Doesn't Really Set The Perfect Role Model
McCain has the only appropriate response to something like this, since neither of us has the power to incinerate the manufacturer:
Today's cultural forecast: Raging epidemics of abuse, perversion, disease and addiction, with a 40% chance of widely scattered fire and brimstone.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The Virtues of Multiculturalism

The Virtues of Multiculturalism

It is an article of faith in some circles that all cultures are equally valid, because there are no absolutes. For this reason, America should welcome all cultures on an equal basis--and not try to "Americanize" immigrants. Oh no. Here's another reminder--not from Islam--of the fact that there are cultural differences that I don't want to feel "comfortable" in this country. (Liberals probably feel differently.) From the July 23, 2009 Associated Press:

Prosecutors filed sexual assault charges against four boys ages 9 to 14, officials said Thursday, alleging they brutally attacked an 8-year-old girl after luring her to a shed with chewing gum.

Police said the girl's parents criticized her after the violence, blaming her for bringing shame on the family. All five children are refugees from the West African nation of Liberia.

The boys held the girl down while they took turns assaulting her, police said.

...

Authorities said the victim was in the care of Child Protective Services after her parents blamed her for the rapes and bringing shame to the family.

“The father told the case worker and an officer in her presence that he didn't want her back. He said Take her, I don't want her,'” Hill said.

Hill cited the family's background as the reason the family shunned the girl.

In many parts of Africa, women often are blamed for being raped for “enticing” men or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Girls who are raped often are shunned by their families.

Call me narrow-minded.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Not With a Bang But A Whimper (2008)

Not With a Bang But A Whimper (2008)

Theodore Dalrymple, Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2008), pp. xi + 252

I've mentioned a previous collection of Dalrymple's essays
that powerfully impressed me with its descriptions of the British underclass. This is the most recent of these collections: powerfully penetrating in explaining the disasters that have become dramatically worse as liberalism has become dominant in Britain, they also reveal a good and decent man doing a hopeless job: psychiatrist in a charity hospital and prison, in a society where intellectuals are intentionally destroying any hope that the poorest Britons will ever have of making something of their lives.

Many of these essays first appeared in City Journal, and I was fortunate to find this one, "A Murderess's Tale" online. I suspect that if you read it, you will be tempted to read more. And perhaps seek antidepressants. Make sure you cut Dalrymple's work with something encouraging and uplifting, or you are going to be miserable.

Anyway, I've mentioned before the statistical evidence that shows that child sexual abuse (CSA) survivors are disproportionately represented among homosexuals--as even some very PC books admit, and throw out implausible explanations rather than admit that messing with a child sexually when they are emotionally immature might cause sexual confusion later in life.

We also have examples of prominent homosexuals who acknowledge being CSA survivors, such as Elaine DeGeneres, and her former partner Anne Heche (now married to a man). And when you see that a prominent lesbian gets arrested for lewd acts of little girls? What's the first thought in your mind? Is she recreating the situation that she was in--but now she's in control?

Anyway, back to "A Murderess's Tale." Dalrymple tells us of a case in which he testified, a murder case:
Every murder raises deep and disturbing questions, philosophical, psychological, and sociological: none more so than one in which I recently gave testimony in court. The accused was a girl aged 18, who had stabbed her 16-year-old lesbian lover to death. There could be no doubt as to who had inflicted the fatal wounds: a tape from a closed-circuit camera in the entrance hall of the accused’s apartment building showed her following her lover out of the building with a long knife in each hand, raised ready to stab, as in a too-melodramatic rendition of Lady Macbeth.
Dalrymple tells us of the barbarism in which the 18 year old was raised (which, by his other writing, is apparently pretty common in Britain today):

One of the characteristics of relationships such as that between her mother and her stepfather is their all-consuming nature, at least for the woman. She can think of, and has time for, nothing else: she is the star, albeit the unhappy one, of her own mental soap opera. In this case, the mother noticed neither the stepfather’s habitual violence toward her children by her former lover nor the fact that her oldest son was having intercourse with her daughter while the boy was between the ages of 13 and 17, and his sister was between the ages of eight and 12.

Eventually, her daughter, now 14, plucked up the courage to tell her what had happened. Her mother said she didn’t believe her, flew into a rage, and threw her out of the house. She went to stay with a friend and then asked her mother whether she could return home. As a condition of doing so, her mother made her apologize to her brother and swear never to say anything like it again.

Her mother also failed to notice that, from the age of 12, her daughter had begun to drink heavily: or if she noticed it, she considered it a matter of no importance. Her daughter skipped school in order to drink; by the evening, she was often very drunk and soon got to the stage when she drank first thing in the morning to steady her shaking hands. She was also smoking marijuana. She said that she drank and smoked to obliterate the reality of her life, which was too awful to bear unaided.

Is there anyone that finds her substance abuse surprising? Is there anyone that finds it at all implausible that her sexual response would be seriously affected by this? When you put this together with the disproportionate problem of substance abuse in the gay community (both among men and women), why isn't anyone making a serious effort to study the connection?

Hey, maybe it is all a big, astonishing coincidence that CSA survivors have many characteristics disproportionately in common with homosexuals (such as substance abuse problems, difficulties in forming long term relationships, high suicide rates) and homosexuals are disproportionately CSA survivors. But I think everyone knows that the reason that this question doesn't get studied is because a lot of people know that there probably is a causal connection (at least for some homosexuals)--and the "I was born this way" argument would be demolished.

UPDATE: One reader takes issue with this because Dalrymple's work is about the underclass, and homosexuals are smarter and more capable than straight people. His evidence for this is a collection of marketing data compiled by someone named Tony Marco:

Any claims that gays as an entire class are seriously "oppressed" seem clearly bogus in light of emerging, highly accurate marketing studies done by gays themselves that show gays to be, to the contrary, enormously advantaged relative to the general population -- and astronomically advantaged when compared to truly disadvantaged minorities. A July 18, 1991, Wall Street Journal article, entitled "Overcoming a Deep-Rooted Reluctance, More Firms Advertise to Gay Community", reported the following findings by the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the U.S. Census Bureau; cf. also The Marketer, "The Gay Nineties," September 1990; Quest magazine, a Denver gay tabloid ("Invisibility = Stagnation"), February, 1992; and Overlooked Opinions studies, cite to follow:

  • Gays have an average annual household income of $55,430, versus a general population income of $32,144. Mean income of disadvantaged African-American households is only $12,166 (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990).
  • Factoring in comparative household sizes, gays average annual individual income is reported as $36,800, compared with $12,287 for average Americans and a mere $3,041 for disadvantaged African Americans. This means gay individual income is more than 300% greater than average Americans' -- and an enormous 1,200% greater than disadvantaged African Americans' (The Marketer, op. cit.).
  • More than three times as many gays as average Americans are college graduates (59.6% vs. 18.0%; gays average 15.7 years' education vs. 12.7 for average Americans) -- dwarfing achievements of truly disadvantaged African-Americans and Hispanics. More than three times as many gays as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions (49.0% vs. 15.9%) -- making gays embarrassingly more advantaged than true minorities in the job market.
  • 65.8% of gays are overseas travelers -- more than four times the percentage (14.0%) of average Americans -- and more than 13 times as many gays as average Americans (26.5% vs. 1.9%) are frequent flyers.
I remember when gay marketing companies first started putting out these claims, the "gays are victims of oppression" crowd insisted (and probably with some truth) that these weren't typical homosexuals, and these companies trying to sell their marketing services were engaged in some sort of fraud in portraying homosexuals as America's new overclass. I think that there's some truth to this.

The bigger problem, however, is that there a lot of "men who have sex with men" out there who usually deny that they are homosexual, and who homosexuals (like the gay supremacist who gave me that link) deny are homosexuals. Yes, that's right! Men who have sex with men are really heterosexuals! And yet that same gay supremacist admitted that these heterosexual men who have sex with men are generally poor, poorly educated, and criminal. Hmmm. It's amazing what fun you can have making your definitions fit your desires.

Monday, January 12, 2009

This Smells Of A Social Science Experiment

This Smells Of A Social Science Experiment

This January 12, 2009 Telegraph news story at first just sounds like another reminder of the decline and fall of Western civilization:

A student who is auctioning her virginity to pay for a masters degree in Family and Marriage therapy has seen bidding hit £2.5million ($3.7m).

Natalie Dylan, 22, claims her offer of a one-night stand has persuaded 10,000 men to bid for sex with her.

Last September, when her auction came to light, she had received bids up to £162,000 ($243,000) but since then interest in her has rocketed.

The student who has a degree in Women's Studies insisted she was not demeaning herself.

Miss Dylan, from San Diego, California, USA, said she was persuaded to offer herself to the highest bidder after her sister Avia, 23, paid for her own degree after working as a prostitute for three weeks.

She said she had had a lot of attention from a wide range of men, including "weirdos", "those who get really graphically sexual about what they want to do to me" and "lots of polite requests from rich businessmen".

I am almost afraid what she considers "weirdos" when you look at what she is proposing to do. But there's part of this story that smells like an elaborate social science experiment. No, I don't mean her remark:
She added: "It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore."
I mean her undergrad degree, and what she is going to use the money for:
The student who has a degree in Women's Studies insisted she was not demeaning herself.

...

to pay for a masters degree in Family and Marriage therapy

I'm skeptical that she's telling the truth about this.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Life at the Bottom

Life at the Bottom

Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), pp. xv + 263

This is an astonishingly depressing book. You really do need to read it--but there are a few caveats that I will get to at the end of the review.

Dalrymple is a psychiatrist in a large inner city. If you just flipped the book open at random, some people would read these horrifying accounts, and notice that the all the prices and values are expressed in dollars, and start screeching, "Racist!" "He's blaming the victims!"

But Dalrymple is a psychiatrist at a large inner city hospital in London, and he is quite emphatic that while some of the underclass he is describing is black, and some is Asian, most of it is white--and that race is really quite irrelevant to the problems of the underclass. It is the values that have been promulgated by upper class and upper middle class intellectuals that have created the problems of the British underclass.
Listening as I do every day to the accounts people give of their lives, I am struck by the very small part in them which they ascribe to their own efforts, choices, and actions. Implicitly they disagree with Bacon's famous dictum that "chiefly the mould of a man's fortune is in his own hands." Instead they experience themselves as putty in the hands of fate.
Dalyrymple describes how the words that many of those he sees imply that everything bad that happens to them is just random chance. He tells of a convicted murderer who was asking him for a methadone prescription:
I told him that I would prescribe a reducing dose, and that within a relatively short time my prescription would cease. I would not prescribe a maintenance dose for a man with a life sentence.

"Yes," he said, "it's just my luck to be here on this charge."

Luck? He had already served a dozen prison sentences, many of them for violence, and on the night in question had carried a knife with him, which he must have known from experience that he was inclined to use. But it was the victim of the stabbing who was the real author of the killer's action: if he hadn't been there, he wouldn't have been stabbed.

My murderer was by no means alone in explaining his deed as due to circumstances beyond his control. As it happens, there are three stabbers (two of them to death) now in the prison who used precisely the same expression when describing to me what happened. "The knife went in," they said when pressed to recover their allegedly lost memories of the deed.

The knife went in-unguided by human hand, apparently. That the long-hated victims were sought out, and the knives carried to the scene of the crimes, was as nothing compared with the willpower possessed by the inanimate knives themselves, which determined the unfortunate outcome.
He recounts a prisoner who specialized in breaking into churches and stealing valuables, then burning down the church to hide as best he could the crime. And who is responsible for these crimes, in the mind of the prisoner? Churches, because "in general churches were poorly secured, easy to break into, and contained valuable objects in silver."

Dalrymple describes women who move from brutal man to brutal man, with a string of children, seldom more than one by each. When they find a man who isn't violent towards them, they leave, because he clearly doesn't care about them enough to express his feelings.

Oddly enough, as much as anger as Dalrymple has for these members of the underclass who seem intent on destroying their lives, and that of everyone with the misfortune to be their lovers, neighbors, and friends, his greatest rage is directed at the multiculturalists and Marxists who have created this mess.

Dalyrymple, who is pretty clearly not a Christian, points out that the collapse of traditional sexual morality did not free the underclass from all the horrible limitations of narrow-minded rigidity. Instead, it destroyed a system of family ties and duties that provided the most stable situation for the poor to rise up and out. The underclass has all the sexual jealousy that was present in the past (and then some), but without any of the rules or social conventions that punished men for philandering and discouraged them (not always very effectively) from abusing their wives and children. The absence of those rules has only aggravated the sexual jealousy problem that seems to be natural to the species.

I have a few complaints about the book. It consists of a series of essays that first appeared in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal in the 1990s. Not surprisingly, you will find certain ideas and examples appear in multiple essays.

A more serious problem is that because it has no footnotes, there are some claims that Dalrymple makes that leave me wondering, "Could that really be true?" He claims that roughly 1/4 of the younger generation of Britons are illiterate, or so close as to be practically illiterate. He tells me that he now has to ask patients that he sees that over age 16 if they can read and write. He reports that many not cannot do so, but do not find it even slightly odd or embarrassing that they cannot. He says that many who can read can sound the words, but often how no idea what they mean. When it comes to general knowledge--he reports that only a very few can identify when World War II took place.

I visited Britain in 1999, at the time that Dalrymple was writing these essays describing a nation reduced to almost medieval levels of literacy, violence, and ignorance. I saw some very discouraging and worrisome signs of social degradation there. I have read a lot of other sources that at least hint at the decline that Dalrymple describes. Still, I do find myself wondering if Dalrymple is letting his experiences of inner city London too strongly color his perceptions. If all of Britain were this bad off, the country would be completely unmanageable.

Perhaps Dalrymple's account is too dark. Still, I recognize that his description of the promotion of victimhood, the destruction of educational standards, the exaltation of racism and classism as the defining causes of everything, and the creation of a dependency society, has created this quagmire, is accurate. We saw it happen in the United States, and in spite of the welfare reforms that Congress passed in 1995, we still have a lot of these problems. I have known too many examples over the years.

Perhaps the most depressing aspect of Dalrymple's book is that he fails to acknowledge that there is a legitimate distinction between the undeserving and the deserving poor. There are people who, even with all the horrible bad ideas that have been dropped on them through government schooling and the general destruction of the criminal justice system, are still victims. The girl who gets raped, and ends up in a cycle of destructive relationships as a result. The children who are physically or sexually abused, and end up violent or self-destructive. The many women that Dalrymple describes who have tied themselves to violent losers because they have never seen any other pattern of relationships! These are people that might well benefit from a hand up--if those who are offering the hand up recognize the nature of what put these victims in their situation.

As Dalrymple points out, racism is widely used as an excuse for problems among Britons of African or Caribbean ancestry--and he does not dispute that racism has been, and may still be a problem. But he also points out that it utterly fails to explain white Britons who have reduced themselves to the British equivalent of a "wigger." It also fails to explain why Britons of East Indian ancestry are disproportionately going to law school and medical school. At the same time, there is now a sizable population of third generation East Indians in Briton, who are beginning to take their cultural clues from the British underclass. The parents and grandparents of these kids came to Briton when racism was legal and widely accepted--and yet did not end up as drug abusing, violent criminals.

Well worth checking out of the library. Read it and meditate on Dalyrmple's thoughts about how multiculturalism and class envy (promoted from the top) is turning Britain into a Third World country. It isn't the immigrants that are doing this; it's the intellectuals.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Materialism Out of Control

Materialism Out of Control

I've long been upset about the manner in which materialism has become dominant in America. It isn't any great surprise, really, when you think about it. Marxism and its dishonest progressive variants have long insisted that only material goods matter--that anything of a deeper spiritual significance is simply a delusion.

There's nothing wrong with wanting some of the nice material items of life, but the entire "Black Friday" shopping idiocy has long bothered me. Some of the stores here in Boise were opening at 4:00 AM or 5:00 AM this morning--which means that employees had to be getting up at 3:00 AM or 4:00 AM to get to work. And on the morning after one of the few holidays of the year that hasn't been completely corrupted by materialism? This is repulsive. I won't shop on Black Friday, not just because of the materialism that it represents, but because if you shop at stores that demand their employees get up at this ridiculous hour, you are telling the stores that this is acceptable behavior.

And now we have this tragedy which should cause a lot of Americans to think long and hard about how important "bargains" really are. From the November 28, 2008 Newsday:
Bargain-hungry shoppers stepped on a fallen Wal-Mart worker, who died Friday morning, after the crowd knocked down the store's front doors -- and the worker -- during the "utter chaos" of a Black Friday shopping melee, Nassau County police said.

"A throng of shoppers . . . physically broke down the doors" at around 5 a.m. Friday and knocked the 34-year-old part-time worker to the ground as the crowd pushed its way into the store at the Green Acres Mall, Nassau police said.

"This crowd was out of control," said Nassau Police Det. Lt. Michael Fleming, who is investigating the death. He characterized the melee as "utter chaos."

Fleming said an estimated 2,000 people had gathered in line around 5 a.m. as the store was preparing to open. Asked at a news conference whether the store had enough security given the crowds that Black Friday shopping typically attracts, Fleming said no. Four shoppers had minor injuries, police said.

People in the rear of the line began pushing, cascading the people in the front into the doors, which were knocked off their hinges, Fleming said.

Hundreds of shoppers who then streamed in literally stepped on the worker who later died, Fleming said.

Fleming said the worker, who has not been publicly identified, was a temporary worker sent by an employment agency. Fleming said criminal charges were possible in the case, though he said it would be nearly impossible to identify individual shoppers.

But, he said, authorities were reviewing surveillance video.

Another police officer told Newsday the prelude to the death at the Green Acres Mall was "a mob scene."

Shoppers who surged past the fallen Wal-Mart worker into the store were asked to leave by other store workers, some of them crying and visibly upset, said one shopper, Kimberly Cribbs, of Far Rockaway.

Though rumors circulated among the shoppers that someone had been badly injured, people ignored the Wal-Mart workers' requests that they stop shopping, move to the front of the store and exit, Cribbs said.

"They kept shopping. It's not right. They're savages," Cribbs said.
Doors knocked off their hinges? Someone trampled to death? Clearly, the economy isn't bad enough yet to restrain these savages.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Wow! Watching TV Influences Behavior!

Wow! Watching TV Influences Behavior!

What a surprise! From the November 3, 2008 Washington Post (that well known organ of the Religious Right):
Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.

The study, which tracked more than 700 12-to-17-year-olds for three years, found that those who viewed the most sexual content on TV were about twice as likely to be involved in a pregnancy as those who saw the least.

"Watching this kind of sexual content on television is a powerful factor in increasing the likelihood of a teen pregnancy," said lead researcher Anita Chandra. "We found a strong association." The study is being published today in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Now, I am prepared to consider other possible explanations. Perhaps those teenagers who are most inclined towards sexual activity are drawn to "steamy programming"--and the kids who are wearing the "True Love Waits" rings only watch wholesome shows. But isn't it more likely that just like TV commercials makes people want to buy the goods advertised, that watching sexually charged materials might incline teenagers (whose bodies are already rather primed for this) to do more than think about having sex?

Here's a really wild idea: what do you think would happen if TV shows vigorously promoted chastity, sobriety, hard work, respect for others, and education? I'm not suggesting that every teenager in America would suddenly fly right. Rebellion is, unfortunately, part of what many (most?) teenagers do, as a way of differentiating themselves from their parents. But think about the kids who are drawn to promiscuity, substance abuse, laziness. Do you suppose if the popular culture were discouraging these behaviors, that some of those kids might not go the wrong direction, or at least not go so far?

I'm not looking for Father Knows Best TV shows. But part of why I can't watch a lot of sitcoms that are on broadcast TV (besides their inanity) is how embarrassingly vulgar they have become. What started out an attempt to make TV shows more "realistic" has in turn created a popular vulgarity that then justifies making TV shows even more vulgar--in the continuing pursuit of "realism" (as if many sitcoms are realistic in any other respect). This is a positive feedback loop--each decline in entertainment media encourages a decline in the real world, which turns into another decline in the entertainment media. Hollywood is winning the culture wars--and that includes in the homes of a lot of devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Unbutton Your Beast

Unbutton Your Beast

If you really want to see how rapidly the popular culture is in decline, Levi's has a web site titled, "Unbutton Your Beast." I am sure that someone thought that it would be so cute and clever--but it really shows the vulgarity that has taken over Levi's.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Political Correctness and Hip-Hop Mug Santa

Someone please tell me that isn't serious. Because if it is, this is very serious. From one of the South Africa news services:
Sydney - Santas in Australia's largest city have been told not to use Father Christmas's traditional "ho ho ho" greeting because it may be offensive to women, it was reported on Thursday.

Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say "ha ha ha" instead, the Daily Telegraph reported.

One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use "ho ho ho" because it could frighten children and was too close to "ho", an American slang term for a prostitute.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Gideon to Trojan

I mentioned several months back a modest counterrevolution in Sweden, when one of the hotel chains decided to remove Gideon's Bibles from their hotel rooms--and even those very liberal Swedes, as a nation, responded with upset. Religion was making a modest comeback in Europe. (Admittedly, starting from near-zero, almost anything is a step up.)

Now I see this rather astonishing article in Newsweek. Yes, I found out about this from the American Family Association, and as with most such amazing claims that I receive, I make some effort to verify it before going forward. From November 8, 2007 Newsweek:
In the rooms of Manhattan's trendy Soho Grand Hotel guests can enjoy an eclectic selection of underground music, iPod docking stations, flat-screen TVs and even the living company of a complimentary goldfish. But, alas, the word of God is nowhere to be found. Unlike traditional hotels, the 10-year-old boutique has never put Bibles in its guest rooms, because "society evolves," says hotel spokeswoman Lori DeBlois. Providing Bibles would mean the hotel "would have to take care of every guest's belief."
What might be surprising to many Americans is that the Bible-free room isn't a development just in hip New York City hotels. Across the country upscale accommodations are doing away with the Bible as a standard room amenity. And in its stead have arrived a slew of "lifestyle" products that cater to a younger, hipper (and presumably less religious) clientele. Since 2001 the number of luxury hotels with religious materials in the rooms has dropped by 18 percent, according to the American Hotel and Lodging Association. The Nashville-based Gideons International, which has distributed copies of the Christian scripture to hotels since 1908, declined to comment on this trend.
Edgier chains like the W provide "intimacy kits" with condoms in the minibar, while New York's Mercer Hotel supplies a free condom in each bathroom. Neither has Bibles. Since its recent renovation, the Sofitel L.A. offers a tantalizing lovers' dice game: roll one die for the action to be performed (for example, "kiss," "lick") and the other for the associated body part. The hotel's "mile high" kit, sold in the revamped gift shop, includes a condom, a mini vibrator, a feather tickler and lubricant. The new Indigo hotel in Scottsdale, Ariz., a "branded boutique" launched by InterContinental, also has no Bibles, but it does offer a "One Night Stand" package for guests seeking VIP treatment at local nightclubs and late checkout for the hazy morning after.
Now, it doesn't particularly bother me that hotels might be aiming at encouraging some wild times by their guests. Let's face it: much of the upscale "bed and breakfast" market is romantic getaways. (Although the "One Night Stand" package is pretty clearly aiming at actions that aren't "romantic getaways" at all.) It does somewhat concern me that hotels think:

1. Bible, or "intimacy kits"--as though the two are mutually exclusive. I am always astonished at how secular Americans so completely misunderstand Christianity and its view of sexuality. Christianity teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but it strongly encourages sex inside of marriage. The secularists should be aware that the infamous "lie back and think of England" statement attributed to Alice, Lady Hillingdon (1857-1940) has never been properly attributed, and even if she did write it, it may be more a statement of her relationship to her husband than a widely held Victorian belief.

2. That there's some need to scrap Bibles for fear of offending what? Muslims? Dhimmitude is coming, and the same corporate interests that have bent over forwards to make the homosexual community happy are going to put our collective heads on the block to make Islam happy. Heaven forbid that U.S. corporations not take steps that offend the majority of Americans!

Monday, November 12, 2007

A MySpace Tragedy

But really, a moral failing tragedy. From the November 12, 2007 Suburban Journals, which is apparently a publication of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

His name was Josh Evans. He was 16 years old. And he was hot.

"Mom! Mom! Mom! Look at him!" Tina Meier recalls her daughter saying.

Josh had contacted Megan Meier through her MySpace page and wanted to be added as a friend.Yes, he's cute, Tina Meier told her daughter. "Do you know who he is?"

"No, but look at him! He's hot! Please, please, can I add him?"

Mom said yes. And for six weeks Megan and Josh - under Tina's watchful eye - became acquainted in the virtual world of MySpace.

Josh said he was born in Florida and recently had moved to O'Fallon. He was homeschooled. He played the guitar and drums.

He was from a broken home: "when i was 7 my dad left me and my mom and my older brother and my newborn brother 3 boys god i know poor mom yeah she had such a hard time when we were younger finding work to pay for us after he loeft."

...
She loved swimming, boating, fishing, dogs, rap music and boys. But her life had not always been easy, her mother says.

She was heavy and for years had tried to lose weight. She had attention deficit disorder and battled depression. Back in third grade she had talked about suicide, Tina says, and ever since had seen a therapist.

But things were going exceptionally well. She had shed 20 pounds, getting down to 175. She was 5 foot 5½ inches tall.

She had just started eighth grade at a new school, Immaculate Conception, in Dardenne Prairie, where she was on the volleyball team. She had attended Fort Zumwalt public schools before that.

Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. The girls had spent much of seventh grade alternating between being friends and, the next day, not being friends, Tina says.

Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh, Tina says. After school, Megan would rush to the computer.
Josh did not exist--and after playing games with Megan's head long enough, the teenagers involved drove her to suicide. If this stupid stunt had been entirely the work of teenagers, I would have been disappointed, but not terribly surprised. But the parents of one of the teenagers that put this ultimately deadly fraud together apparently played a part in it.

What really bothers me about this article is how completely unresponsible the parents who played a crucial role in this feel. Megan's parents are now divorcing. Megan's mom kept a very, very close watch on her daughter's online activities--but even this wasn't enough.

I can remember junior high school very well--the ferocious cruelties, the violence. Adding the anonymity and disconnectedness of cyberspace just aggravates the problem.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Why Didn't Nancy Pelosi Just Walk Out?

The Democrats keep trying to claim that they aren't really the party of sexual depravity--so why did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stick around after this start?

Sure, politicians always appreciate a warm welcome when they appear on daytime TV talk shows. But the welcome House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got today on ABC's chick TV show "The View" was more than warm - it was downright steamy.
Even before Pelosi walked on stage to take her seat at the round table, the show's moderator, Whoopi Goldberg, and its co-hosts - with former news anchor Barbara Walters leading the pack - started flirting with the speaker's husband, Paul, who was seated in the front row.
"You wanna take a look at Nancy Pelosi's handsome husband?" Walters asked the audience. Yes, came the answer in the form of whooping and hollering.
Poor guy was actually blushing. Then the show's hosts asked him how long he and Madame Speaker have been married.
"Forty-four years," Mr. Pelosi managed between pained glances in the direction of a blanket, a paper bag, anything to hide under.
Whoopi got the pleasure of introducing Speaker Pelosi, who she noted is the first woman speaker of the House who, somewhere along the way, managed to raise five children.
But Walters was still stuck on Mr. Pelosi, unfortunately for Mr. Pelosi. And this is where a little blushing turned to a Code Red alert, four-alarm fire.
Trying to shout over Whoopi and her other gabbing co-hosts and excited audience members, Barbara turned to Guest Pelosi and said she has heard Whoopi say before that she'd "do Paul Newman."
"And I think she'd like to do your husband as well," Walters deadpanned in that quintessential accent that made her the subject of late-night lampooning over the decades.
Of course, Whoopi being Whoopi, she couldn't let that one go, which is where the speaker begins blushing.
Yes, Whoopi implicitly acknowledged, she'd like to do Mr. Pelosi - but she might take his wife while she's at it. "I would do her as well. But we should wait on that because you're still in office, I don't want to cause a problem."
Oh dear, would this were not live TV.
As you might expect, Speaker Pelosi remained silent underneath her signature permanent smile. And her press office later remained predictably mum on the specter of Whoopi-on-Speaker action.
"She enjoyed being on the show," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly told us via email. "It was a fun chance to talk to (primarily) women around the country about what Democrats are doing in Congress."
One of the comments on the article quoted above exaggerates the reason that Islamofascists hate us--but there's a little truth to this, and it is part of why the Democratic Party is never going to get much support from people with some self-discipline:
Islamic fundamentalists don't hate America because of George W Bush. They hate America because of celebrities such as Britney Spears, 50-cent, Madonna and Whoopi Goldberg.
In the eyes of religious Muslims, Western culture is the height of decadence. They do not refer to the USA as "the Great Satan" because of our military power, but rather because they find Western popular culture to be a disgraceful affront to nearly every value that they hold sacred.
They see their culture threatened by the West's great pursuit of the false gods of wealth and celebrity status, sexual liberation and hedonism.
The curious paradox is that the Hollywood idiots who rail the loudest against GWB are in fact a large part of the problem. They will also be the first to get beheaded when the Taliban takes over.
There was a time, not that many years ago, when this kind of banter on live television would have been the end of someone's contract--and perhaps the end of that person's career. There was also a time when a politician would have at least pretended disgust, and walked off the show. American culture is in serious decline.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Where Immoral Behavior Takes You

I almost feel sorry for the guy. Doubtless, he didn't think that what he was doing would become publicly known. Doubtless, he thought that what he was doing was his business, and no one else's. And I'm sure that he is now filled with shame about what happened, and upset because his career is in shambles, with no one to defend him. If only Michael Vick had solicited sex in a men's room, instead of organizing dogfights!

It says quite a bit about how rapidly the definition of "immoral" has changed in our society that Michael Vick probably wishes that he and Senator Larry "Happy Feet" Craig could change places.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Where Is Jeremiah?

The book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament recounts how Jeremiah rebukes Israel for its immorality in worshipping false gods (including child sacrifice), materialism, and oppressing the weak. I occasionally post examples of what I consider decline and fall of Western civilization. Sometimes the fact that the government is taking a positive action is itself an indication of how rapidly our society is declining into vulgarity. It is a pretty depressing sign of the times that you can read the intelligentsia defend bestiality by saying that it is just like being heterosexual. Or European political parties pursuing the legalization of incest.

Instapundit linked to this article in Marie Claire about the hot new cosmetic procedure which is so disturbing that I will not quote the article, or describe it. I can't even figure out a way to allude to it, because no rational person would even begin to imagine that anyone would think that this was necessary. It is, I am afraid, a sign of how completely hardcore pornography and specifically sodomy has taken over the definition of what makes a woman attractive.

I have flipped through more than a few of the magazines that my daughter read as a teenager, such as Marie Claire and Glamour, and I have noticed a self-refuting contrast between the articles and the ads. The articles emphasize that what matters in making a woman beautiful is what is on the inside. The ads emphasize that you need this makeup, these clothes, and by implication this body to get a man interested in you. I would like to believe the readership reads the articles, and is completely uninfluenced by the ads. But who's kidding whom?

I remember reading several years back a disturbing article about how the widespread watching of pornography, and the increasingly exposed pictures of male celebrities, were beginning to create widespread discomfort among teenaged males about their bodies--much like several generations of teenaged girls have grown up convinced that they were ugly because they didn't look like various actresses.

I weep for a country that has declined so rapidly that young women feel that the procedure described in that Marie Claire article is necessary for them to be optimally attractive. Perhaps if the feminists had spent a bit less time worrying about abortion, and a bit more time promoting the idea that women are people, not devices for men's sexual gratification, we wouldn't be in this absurd situation today.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Jernalists Who Cant Spel

There's a difference between typos (which a lot of journalists make) and having no idea what the word is, so you accept what the spell checker suggests. From September 11, 2007 KMVT channel 11:
Monday evening, a base jumper dangled from the Perrine Bridge after his parachute got tangled in one of the beams. Gary Golay, a witness says, “his cute opened at about 56 feet. And as soon as it opened, the wind blew it shut, threw it straight into the gerter.”

After hanging for two hours, repelling squads from search and rescue and St. Luke’s lowered him to a boat, where he was life flighted to the hospital.

Sgt. Darron Brown, Twin Falls Co. Sheriff reported, “The bridge is kind of a unique situation, because just repelling off the bridge or being belayed off the bridge in this instance that the gentleman was in, you can't just reach him by going off of the bridge. We had to send a couple of people on the catwalk underneath the bridge, throw a line to the paramedic that was being belayed down to him, so that we could reach him and treat the victim.”
Okay, I will assume that "cute" was just a missing "h." But "gerter" instead of "girder" and "repelling" instead of "rappelling"?

I'm a bit disappointed by "after his parachute got tangled in one of the beams." It's valid English, and if the "jernalist" quoted someone, I would give him high marks for capturing the flavor of a not very educated person. But most people that write for a living recognize that "got" is a very weak and uneducated verb. Something like "after his parachute became tangled in one of the beams" or "after his parachute tangled itself in one of the beams" would be more appropriate to a news organization--not a junior high student's description of the event.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

This Is Not a Positive Sign For American Culture

New York City is considering a symbolic ordinance expressing their disapproval of the use of the words "bitch" and "ho." (For those of you who are over 40--"ho" is the black English mispronounciation of "whore.")

The New York City Council, which drew national headlines when it passed a symbolic citywide ban earlier this year on the use of the so-called n-word, has turned its linguistic (and legislative) lance toward a different slur: bitch.

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

Professor Volokh points out that the measure actually doesn't do anything, and therefore doesn't qualify as a First Amendment violation:
It's not a ban as the term "ban" is normally used, nor is it "unenforceable" in the sense of being unenforceable because it's trumped by the First Amendment or because it's hard to effectively enforce. There's nothing here to enforce -- this is essentially government speech condemning the words, and calling for people to stop using them. The City Council would be perfectly free to proclaim such a view.

...

But in any event, let's not make a federal case out of this: The proposed resolution may be condemned on various grounds, but not because it violates anyone's free speech rights.

What I found most troubling is the degraded state of New York City residents. From that same New York Times article:
While the bill also bans the slang word “ho,” the b-word appears to have acquired more shades of meaning among various groups, ranging from a term of camaraderie to, in a gerund form, an expression of emphatic approval. Ms. Mealy acknowledged that the measure was unenforceable, but she argued that it would carry symbolic power against the pejorative uses of the word. Even so, a number of New Yorkers said they were taken aback by the idea of prohibiting a term that they not only use, but do so with relish and affection.

“Half my conversation would be gone,” said Michael Musto, the Village Voice columnist, whom a reporter encountered on his bicycle on Sunday night on the corner of Seventh Avenue South and Christopher Street. Mr. Musto, widely known for his coverage of celebrity gossip, dismissed the idea as absurd.

“On the downtown club scene,” he said, munching on an apple, the two terms are often used as terms of endearment. “We divest any negative implication from the word and toss it around with love.”

Darris James, 31, an architect from Brooklyn who was outside the Duplex, a piano bar in the West Village, on Sunday night was similarly opposed. “Hell, if I can’t say bitch, I wouldn’t be able to call half my friends.”

They may not have been the kinds of reaction that Ms. Mealy, a Detroit-born former transit worker serving her first term, was expecting. “They buried the n-word, but what about the other words that really affect women, such as ‘b,’ and ‘ho’? That’s a vile attack on our womanhood,” Ms. Mealy said in a telephone interview. “In listening to my other colleagues, that they say that to their wives or their friends, we have gotten really complacent with it.”
Paging Bill Cosby! Paging Bill Cosby!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

More Sonoma County News

A reader pointed me to this horrifying story of animal cruelty in Sonoma County:


COTATI, Calif. — A 3-month-old cat is clinging to life at a Sonoma County animal hospital after having been set on fire by two teenage girls who now face charges of animal cruelty.
The kitten, named Adam by hospital staff, has undergone two surgeries and had its tail and the tips of its ears amputated. The skin on its back was burned off in the attack, leaving nothing but raw tissue.
"The degree of injury is greater than our normal level of trauma that we care for," said Katheryn Hinkle, the head veterinarian and owner of the Animal Hospital of Cotati. "He's our most critical patient, and we're watching him constantly."
The cat, one of several feral felines trapped for spaying and neutering, was in a cage outside an apartment in Santa Rosa when two 15-year-old girls allegedly poured flammable liquid on the animal and set it on fire last month.
An 11-year-old boy and his friend saw the smoke and heard the cat, then eight weeks old, shrieking while the girls laughed. The girls, whose names have not been released, were charged with cruelty to animals in Sonoma County Juvenile Court last week.
My reader tells me:
Like you, I lived there too - in the 80's. What an absolute wasteland of common sense. I could relate a few stories about the absurdity of thinking there, especially when it came to my two sons in school.
I have driven back through there on vacation since. The experience is almost like visiting the zoo, kind of like driving through Haight-Ashbury used to be.
UPDATE: Another reader asks why the cat wasn't euthanized? The injuries must be extremely painful.