1. Jonathan Haidt interviewed on Bill Moyers about our contentious culture. He explores the differences in the opposing premises of liberalism versus conservatism and also touches on a few themes also mentioned in Charles Murray’s book.
2. Tim Carney on conservatives’ culture war defensiveness and the encroachment of the federal government.
In charity, just as in commerce, government involvement distorts the market, making it harder for anyone to get by without government aid. Holy Cross Hospital in Silver Spring, from where I write this column, must either accept federal funds or simply refuse to serve the poor. The possible alternatives — funding their service to the poor through private donations — have been crowded out by the Great Society.
I’ll say it again; the same encroachment occurs on college campuses across the country. Once the feds get one tentacle in the organization through their direct federal financing or by providing federally funded subsidies to students they gain the authority to completely control the organization. Thus we have all of the anti-harassment and heavy-handed date rape hysteria.
3. GLAAD pleads for CNN contributor Roland Martin to be fired after a few anti-Beckham, anti-soccer, anti-pink clothing tweets he made during the Super Bowl.
4. Aaron has an interesting post which draws a connection between liberal women’s tendency to use descriptors which are meant to fully communicate their dualistic nature. This is the commonly seen “I like [serious thing A], [serious thing B], [actvist work], and [dumb random socially-approvable food product]“. A good example is Rebecca Watson (Skepchick) who describes herself thusly: ”Fearless leader of Skepchick.org, podcaster for SGU, writer, ice cream enthusiast.” She takes herself seriously but then doesn’t. Push-pull, irony, deepness and authenticity – the currency of the lib-hipster set.
Aaron goes further by making an observation about gay men:
I’ve never quite been able to put my finger on why gay men are narcissistic like they are, but it may be one, or a combination of, two factors: 1) the only sexuality influencing them is profligate male sexuality and a general “unconstrained” outlook (h/t Chuck) results from this with concomitant self-centeredness.
This sounds plausible. Female sexuality is the natural constraint against an unconstrained male sex drive. Womens’ sex drive provides a natural check on mens’ sex drive. No barrier – a dyke, if you will – constrains these two vectors of male sexuality.
5. A post which seems to insinuate that lower incomes cause lower marriage rates. I’m not sure if that rings true as poorer people would have a financial interest in shacking up with a stable partner with whom they could split rent, bills, car payments, and insurance payments. So if it is true that lower income did cause declining marriage rates (instead of cultural changes) then that would be one more strike against the intelligence of those lower classes. I still like the Charles Murray argument which is, basically, that the poor are increasingly populated by the cognitively inferior and that taking away certain social controls has lifted the lid off of the crock pot. The cognitively inferior need stringently enforced social codes in order to stay on the straight and narrow. So what has happened over the past several decades is that the cream of the crop are leaving the areas where dumb people reside, and the voice of morality has diminished. This is a double whammy on the dumb class.
6. Canadian Prime Minister holding oil trade talks with Chinese premier.