Squaring the Culture

I’ve been watching Western civilization deteriorate for most of my adult life, at the hands of a religion that doesn’t acknowledge itself as a religion. It doesn’t even acknowledge itself as a philosophy. And since I’m not a philosopher, I’m not entirely sure what to call it. I’m hoping somebody reading this can help me.

The ruling precept of this philosophy/religion seems to be “No idea is better than any other idea.” It calls this “tolerance,” and describes itself as “non-judgmental.” It condemns the act of asserting that some idea truly is better than another. The act of asserting that any idea is better than any other, since it asserts that other ideas are wrong, is called “hate.”

Thus, to assert, for example, that premarital sexual promiscuity is somehow less acceptable behavior than premarital chastity, is to “hate.” To assert that homosexuals are self-destructive and constitute a public health risk, is to “hate.” To assert that a political system protecting the liberty of its citizens is inherently better than one that suppresses its citizens to some collective will, is to “hate.” And so forth.

The philosophy refuses to allow itself to be named. They do this, I think, because as soon as they allow themselves to be named, it becomes immediately obvious that they’re no different from any other philosophy. They’re angling for a special plea: “We’re not a philosophy, we’re just what is.” This makes it possible to claim unique status in education, for example: any other idea constitutes “teaching religion,” or “teaching philosophy,” and while that’s fine as an elective, only this one idea gets the full backing of government. And if they allowed themselves to be identified as a religion, it would become immediately obvious that what they want is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment; they want their idea to become the official national religion… only, since they don’t call it a religion, it’s ok.

More often, if you attempt to name it, adherents to this way of thinking claim there is no central philosophy. “We’re all different,” they claim. They especially hate being called “liberals,” and that’s just as well, since they’re anything but liberal. But they refuse to be named, and they point to all the variants among themselves. To borrow from Ann Coulter, they’re arguing that because there are differences between a Dachshund, a Doberman, and a Great Dane, there’s no meaning to the word “dog.”

“Multiculturalists” is closer. “Postmodernists.” “Social Progressives.” “Neo-Marcusian Deconstructionists.” I dunno. Help me.

What struck me today is that the idea is self-refuting. It asserts that the idea “No idea is better than any other” is correct; to them, that’s a correct idea, and other ideas are wrong. Therefore, those who argue this, don’t believe it themselves. They just want their idea to get treated differently from other ideas.

Name that philosophy.

As John Edwards drops out of the Democratic primary race, intellectuals from the New Republic can’t stop congratulating him on how good a campaigner he was: Johnathan Cohn on why Edwards won, then TNR Editor Ed Kilgore on why Edwards lost. Analyses concerning Edwards’ hard-hitting populist message about economic inequality in America, and why it didn’t catch on. Both are clueless.

Guys, Edwards didn’t catch on because he was a phony. None of his populist messages corresponded to anything in his past voting record. He wasn’t sincere. He stood for nothing other than gaining power for himself. And while you’ll always find a few patsies who haven’t been paying attention to follow a message like that, you can’t just paste words together and expect everybody to follow.

Of course, Democrat candidates have been attempting just that for decades now. I don’t recall the last Democratic Presidential nominee for whom it could not be said that any relationship between his true beliefs and what he said in public was pure coincidence.

Who said “You can fool some folks all the time, and everybody some of the time, but you can’t fool everybody all the time?” Oh, that’s right… it was a Republican!

I don’t mean to be a sore loser, but Michelle Malkin writes not one, but two posts documenting that the Florida Republican primary, which is supposed to be a closed primary, was decided by Independents.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel published a general article on the election with a disturbing comment buried near the bottom. An independent voter was instructed by poll workers to pick a party; when he questioned this action, which would have been illegal, a poll worker told him that that’s what the poll workers were instructed to do.

In northern Coral Springs, near the Sawgrass Expressway and Coral Ridge Drive, David Nirenberg arrived to vote as an independent. Nevertheless, he said poll workers insisted he choose a party ballot.

“He said to me, ‘Are you Democrat or Republican?’ I said, ‘Neither, I am independent.’ He said, ‘Well, you have to pick one,”’ Nirenberg said.

In Florida, only those who declare a party are allowed to cast a vote in that party’s presidential primary.

Nirenberg said he tried to explain to the poll worker that he should not vote on a party ballot because of his “no party affiliation” status.

Nirenberg said a second poll worker was called over who agreed that independents should not use party ballots, but said they had received instructions to the contrary.

“He said, ‘Ya know, that is kind of funny, but it was what we were told.’ … I was shocked when they told me that.” Nirenberg said he went ahead and voted for John McCain.

Rush Limbaugh picked up on the Sun-Sentinel report and read it on the air. A caller who had worked the polls in south Florida confirmed that, yes, that’s what they were instructed. Ms. Malkin points to documentation confirming that Florida law closes party declaration 29 days before an election, so “take your pick” on the day of the election is illegal.

Captain Ed Morrissey at the Captain’s Quarters argues that cross-over voting is legal and expected, and thinks no foul was committed. With all due respect to the Captain, the reports of improper instructions to the poll workers suggest otherwise. South Florida was, in fact, famous for voter fraud long before the 2000 elections.

McCain and Romney tied among self-described Republicans in the exit polls (see Page 4 of the exit polls). McCain won handily among self-described Independents; this decided the election. Given the reports and south Florida’s history, prudence requires an investigation.

Flip Pidot, at a really fine blog site called Suitably Flip (”I think, therefore I blog”) discusses the matter at length.

McCain is winning Florida, and I’m not a happy man.

With 57% of the precincts counted, McCain has 35%, Romney 31%, Giuliani 15%, Huckabee 13%, and Paul 3%.

I noticed in the exit polls that McCain is dominating the non-religious voters and the Catholics who don’t attend church weekly, and winning most convincingly among voters who think abortion should remain legal. It appears that Romney and Huckabee have split the religious right, with Romney taking about 2 votes to Huckabee’s 1, but that’s leaving the field to McCain on the strength of non-religious moderates.

McCain got his widest margin among voters who believe abortion should be legal. He topped Romney 45% to 20% among voters who think abortion should always be legal, and 42% to 29% among voters who think it should be mostly legal. Romney won among voters who thought abortion should be mostly illegal, 38% to 28% (Huckabee drew 17% of this group), and Huckabee won among voters who felt abortion should always be illegal, 33% to Romney’s 30% and McCain’s 24%.

Another interesting facet showed up when comparing votes by church attendance. Huckabee won among voters who attend church more often than weekly, 41% to Romney’s 27% and McCain’s 23%. Romney won among voters attending church weekly or monthly, 34% to McCain’s 30%, with Huckabee and Giuliani splitting the rest. McCain won among voters who never attend church, 41% to Romney’s 28% (Huckabee got 4% of this group), and among voters who attend church only a few times a year, 39% to Romney’s 34%.

One more detail: Romney won among Protestants, especially among those who attend church regularly (Huckabee was second in this group) . McCain won among Catholics, more handily among those who attend church less than weekly.

Verdict: Romney and Huckabee have split the religious right, and McCain is winning by dominating the non-religious voters.

I need to calculate the number of delegates available among winner-take-all primaries. If this is a national trend, McCain could ride into the convention already anointed the nominee. However, if nobody gets to the convention with a winning total, Huckabee could drop out and swing the election for Romney. It would be interesting to see what sort of deal Romney would be willing to cut for that, especially given the friction between those two.

---

Update: This morning, John Hood over at National Review agrees with my analysis. Thank you, John.

A storm has been raging over the past week regarding a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, regarding the emergence of an antibiotic-resistant strain of staphylococcus that occurs disproportionately in men who have sex with men. The storm illustrates the difficulty we in the public have if we want accurate information about homosexuality, namely, the press refuses to tell us the truth.

It began straightforwardly enough two Mondays past, when Reuters published a brief, punchy article about the study by one Amanda Beck. Entitled “Drug-resistant staph found to be passed in gay sex,” the article furnished sparse details about the study, and about MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the staph infection that’s scaring so many people these days). Included was this exchange from one of the study’s authors:

“Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable,” said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. “That’s why we’re trying to spread the message of prevention.”

According to chemical analyses, bacteria are spreading among the gay communities of San Francisco and Boston, the researchers said.

“We think that it’s spread through sexual activity,” Diep said.

Next, several anti-gay activists jumped on the report as a means to bolster their claim that homosexuality, rather than being a legitimate lifestyle choice, is dangerous. Joe Farrah at Worldnet Daily touted the inherent dangers of anal sex (he’s correct, it’s more lethal than smoking,) Americans for Truth About Homosexuality asked a number of questions concerning public policy, and Matt Barber from Concerned Women for America complained about the risk that the gay lifestyle exposes the rest of us to.

Spurred by conservative reactions, the University of California at San Fransisco, from which the researchers performed the study, issued an apology for publishing a report that could be misleading. It’s pretty bland stuff, basically saying “We didn’t mean to target gays.”

What happened next is what’s troubling to me. A number of well-known sources jumped on the issue with the express intent of “correcting” the public exposure. Newsweek said “a lot of the media got it wrong.” The New York Times reported “the University scrambling to clarify.” And the Columbia Journalism Review took numerous articles to task for allegedly misleading headlines and reports.

The problem is, hardly anybody got it wrong. What most of these sources are objecting to is any suggestion that gays are uniquely responsible for spreading the disease. But the fact is, gays engaged in male-to-male sex are spreading the disease faster than other sources. That’s an accurate representation of what the study found, and none of the anti-gay activists claimed it said anything beyond that.

The most common argument in these “rebuttals” and “retractions” is that lots of other groups have trouble with MRSA. This is true; one study actually pointed out a serious infection risk among pro football players. A gay support site called “Box Turtle Bulletin” cites numerous groups that have reported Community-Associated MRSA outbreaks.

But the fact that there are lots of non-gay activities where you can catch an MRSA infection, doesn’t change the clear fact that gay sex increases the risk dramatically, and spreads the disease faster than other activities (except maybe playing pro linebacker.) The impulse to make an excuse by saying “He’s doing it too, Ma,” is common to humans, but ultimately means nothing other than “I don’t want too much attention paid to my behavior.” It’s an infantile reaction, not a rebuttal.

Matt Barber of CWA wrote a decent column outlining the whitewash. It’s not all that different from the whitewash that’s occurred regarding all things gay.

Let’s state some facts before we go on:

• MRSA is serious stuff. Some 95,000 infections from antibiotic-resistant staph infections resulted in 19,000 deaths in 2005 in America alone, according to estimates produced by the Centers for Disease Control in 2007.
• Hospitals and clinics account for roughly 86% of known cases of MRSA. The weaker strains attack patients with compromised immune systems.
• The roughly 14% of MRSA cases occurring outside hospitals, so-called Community-Associated MRSA, are a more resilient species of bacterium that attack healthy individuals. The study in question addressed these, a clone of the original MRSA called USA300 by researchers. This is what Dr. Diep said might be “unstoppable.”
• You can catch an MRSA infection by poor hygiene, wrestling, playing organized football, or just plain bad luck. If you’re not gay, you’re still at risk.
• You can catch an MRSA infection a lot faster by engaging in anal sex in San Fransisco.

This is not strictly a gay-related disease, and anybody who reported the original report as “New Gay Plague, Like AIDS” got it wrong. The study does not say that it is, nor do any of the anti-gay activists. The study says, however, that gay sex is almost certainly spreading the disease a lot faster than other types of conduct. It doesn’t say which type of gay sexual behavior specifically, but it’s very clear in identifying male-to-male sexual contact. It even specifies that mobile gays with sex partners in multiple cities have probably spread the disease from San Fransisco to Boston, Los Angeles, and New York.

I was completely outraged by the Columbia Journalism Review article. The writer of that article, Curtis Brainard, lies outright in his eagerness to defend homosexual conduct. In objecting specifically to the Reuters headline, “Drug-resistant staph passed in gay sex – U.S. study,” Brainard says this:

This is not what the study found. It found that USA300 is “spreading rapidly” and is more common among gay men than other populations. That it is spreading sexually is presumed because staph bacteria tend to collect around the groin, as well as in armpits and other bodily crevices-but it is only presumed. The study clearly stated (and some reporters did as well) that:

“Specific sexual behaviors were not assessed or documented in clinic charts; we therefore cannot comment on the association between multidrug-resistant USA300 infection and specific male-male sexual practices.”

To peg “gay sex” as the culprit in a headline is completely misleading and journalistically irresponsible.

The problem is, the headline is completely accurate, and Brainard quoted the study out of context. Brainard was quoting a section of limitations acknowledging that the study cannot pinpoint which of several possible specific behaviors are at fault. That gay sex generally was implicated was clear and unmistakable, however. From the same section of the study Brainard quotes, the researchers tell us this:

Data from this study suggest that multidrug-resistant USA300 has spread rapidly among men who have sex with men in San Fransisco and Boston, and that having male-male sex seems to be a risk factor for multidrug-resistant USA300 infection independent of HIV infection.

The researchers continue in the next paragraph:

Our findings that 27% (32 of 118) of men who have sex with men from the SFGH HIV clinic and 39% (47 of 121) of men who have sex with men from Fenway Community Health had infections involving buttocks, genitals, or perineum are consistent with sexual transmission of USA300 in this population.

In other words, the study found precisely what Mr. Brainard says the study did not find. The headline about which Brainard complains is, in fact, accurate.

It gets worse. Again, from the discussion section of the findings (same section Brainard quotes):

It is not clear whether the behavior potentiating these infections among men who have sex with men is anal sex …, skin-abrading sexual practices, or increased frequency of intimate skin-to-skin contact; prevention messages may therefore need to suggest caution in each of these practices.

In other words, the limitation on the study’s specificity, which Brainard represents as absolving gay sex as the culprit, the researchers themselves claim is a reason to include all possibly implicated types of gay sex in their warnings!

The caveat Brainard quotes occurs at the end of the “Discussion” section of the report, after the sections I quote; it seems highly unlikely that he found his quote without reading the rest of the section. The most likely cause of his error is that he is lying outright — that he wants to obscure the clear findings of the report. The only other plausible explanation is that he wants so badly for the report to say other than what it says that he’s simply incapable of reading accurately. In either case, Mr. Brainard should be severely chastised.

If the public knew the truth about the genuine public health risks of homosexuality, there would be no general approval of the gay lifestyle; it would be evident to the average Joe that homosexuality is pathological and dangerous. The activists were not trying to make the report say anything other than what it said: here’s one more reason, among dozens of others, why it’s truly dangerous to engage in gay sex, and why gay sex can increase the risk to the rest of us. If the press isn’t permitted to say this, even though it’s supported clearly by sound research, how can we trust the press?

---

Update: I believe I was a bit too rough on Curtis Brainard. Rereading the various quotes, it appears to me that he simply misread the sentence he quoted, and took “cannot comment on… specific male–male sexual practices” to mean “cannot comment on homosexuality as a cause.” He clearly misread it, but I doubt that he was lying.

Obama won big: Obama 55%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 18%.

The powerhouse bloggers and pundits are saying “This is too big to just be racial,” but I believe they’re wrong. Exit poll data shows that Edwards won among non-black voters over 30, with Ms. Clinton a close second; this is a state Edwards won in 2004 in a “favorite son” vote. Obama, predictably, won among younger voters. The big win comes from Obama winning almost 4/5 of the black vote; 55% of the state’s voters are black. Sounds racial to me.

Guess Clinton’s “dark side” warning had a downside. Oops.

Edwards is clearly running for some high office other than President. Sister Toldjah yesterday produced rumors that Edwards would be Attorney General in an Obama administration. Today, though, in the wake of losing a state he’d formerly won, Edwards is still claiming he’s in the race. What’s probably going on is that he’s auctioning his endorsement, waiting to see which campaign will offer him the juicier role in exchange for delivering his votes.

Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama, saying “He’ll be a President that inspires the way my father did.” I’ve heard this from people before; they’re people who believe leadership comes from rhetoric, not from character, or who believe they can judge character by listening to rhetoric. I don’t respect them.

Captain Ed Morrissey notes with grim satisfaction how Jon Chait from the LA Times seems to be realizing just how much dirt the Clintons throw. It seems Chait is finally figuring out that the Republicans weren’t making it all up.

Says the Captain:

This does show that the Clintons have started becoming a liability among the elites. That could drive better coverage of their deceptions and smears from the media and expose them in a way that never happened during their years in power. It might force the Democrats to come to terms with the gutter politics they’ve cheered from this crowd and finally put an end to the Clinton machine.

I wouldn’t expect much of that come the fall, Capt. But maybe enough of it will leak out during the early spring to produce a useful effect.

Of course, we don’t want to get to feeling too sorry for Barack Obama. The whirlwind he’s reaping just might be payback for a few times he’s sown to the wind, himself.

From Public Affairs:

The guy is uncanny in either picking weak opponents or having people work behind the scenes to weaken or destroy them. Barack Obama runs for State Senate in 1996 and knocks all four of his opponents off the ballot in the Democratic Primary, which in his neck of the woods [South side of Chicago] was the same as the general election. Yet, he acquires a reputation as a different kind of pol. I’ll say.

Berkowitz goes on to describe how first Blair Hull, Obama’s chief opposition in the Democrat primary, and then Jack Ryan, Obama’s Republican opposition, both dropped out of the race because of ugly divorce problems that just happened to surface during the campaign. Ryan’s demise required the unsealing of a child custody file from California, a move that Berkowitz claims cost the Chicago Tribune a million bucks. Barack could be just that lucky; or Obama political advisor David Axelrod could be just that mean. Your call.

Ron Brownstein cleverly describes the Democrat primary as Nasty, Brutish, and Long. I can’t link to it, because it’s by subscription only, but Real Clear Politics has it on today’s front page, and National Journal has it on today’s Buzz column. Notes Brownstein:

What ought to trouble Democrats is that their two leading candidates have reached this point at a time when a great many signs suggest their competition could continue long after the 22-state showdown on February 5 — probably until Texas and Ohio vote on March 4. That means that unless the candidates can climb back off this emotional ledge, they will have plenty of time to damage each other — and the party’s prospects next fall. Nasty, brutish, and long is an ominous combination for Democrats.

Solomonia reminds us how Palestinian activists love to manipulate the complicit American press, with evidence of staged photographic events surrounding the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza. Photographers and reporters entered sessions of parliament on Gaza where the only light was candlelight, emphasizing the Israeli decision to cut off fuel supplies to those attacking them. Only, the sessions were being held during daylight hours, and the rooms were full of windows. They drew the curtains for photographs.

Never forget; it’s a war of the mind, our enemies know how to fight, and the American press serves our enemies willingly.

I read a truly frightening blog post this afternoon. A young woman who writes as Hormone Peddling Wench (hereafter HPW), who works for slave wages advising women who visit Planned Parenthood clinics, expressed her feelings about a visit from a 12-year-old. Notice how she couches her response in a completely positive verb: she calls this act “Hoping,” the act of encouragement by providing hope.

Yesterday, I Hoped a twelve-year-old girl. She was the last patient I saw, and I have been thinking about her since. She came with an adult friend, maybe an aunt or family friend, and I could not decide whether I thought she was lucky or unlucky. To my mind, she was far too young to be having sex, and it was difficult for me to tell exactly what the situation was with her partner. I do not ever ask the age of sexual partners, and she did not reveal the age of hers, but I could not shake the feeling that hers was older, possibly very much so. I could not get it out of my head that she didn’t exactly give consent, though I had no reason to believe she didn’t. Maybe I was projecting. I try to fight it, but there is some part of me that does not believe that such young girls are able to give consent, particularly if their partners are much older and there is a great imbalance in experience between the two. This part of me undoubtedly borders on patronizing. I don’t really know what this girl’s situation was, nor do I know what her role in it was. It is presumptive in the highest to assume that she was somehow victimized. But I still feel like she was too young. Clearly, that’s my issue, not hers.

I found myself literally pounding my forehead while reading this. Simply. Beyond. Belief.

This is how she assessed the situation:

• She recognized a possibility of child sexual abuse (a 12-year-old is a child);
• She doesn’t think a 12-year-old is capable of giving consent;
• She thinks 12 is too young for sex.

All three of her assessments are correct.

This is how she absolved herself of the responsibility to protect the child (which is, in fact, her legal obligation; Dawn Eden, cited below, has links to relevant Oregon law, where HPW is a mandatory reporter):

• she refuses to ask about the partner;
• she fights her feelings;
• she invents an excuse for her feelings: “I’m projecting;”
• she invents another excuse: “I’m patronizing;”
• she invents yet another excuse: “It’s presumptive (sic — I’m sure she meant “presumptuous”);”
• and another: “It’s my issue, not hers.”

We might even infer (from “maybe I’m projecting”) that HPW, herself, was coerced into sex by a much older partner. Probably she has not come to terms with this herself.

The girl in question was being abused. Twelve is far too young for sex, or for meaningful consent. It doesn’t matter how old the partner is. HPW knew this. And yet, out of devotion to senseless, amoral principles like “autonomy” and “choice,” HPW made an heroic attempt to shield herself from her own conscience.

I’ve spent some time in modern high schools. This is how young people are being taught. It’s beyond horrifying. They’re serving demons. Their better impulses tell them there’s something wrong, but they have no moral center from which to act.

There’s nothing particularly unusual about this sort of excuse-making; most of us have done it at least once, so we recognize it. HPW succeeded in excusing herself from intervening, which would have been awkward and difficult. It was an act of supreme cowardice, for which she is congratulating herself, even while her conscience is telling her plainly that she’s done wrong. Virtue and maturity consist in learning to recognize when we’re doing this, and in ceasing the excuses and giving in to what we know we must do. Shame, likewise, is an appropriate response when we’ve acted shamefully. Someday, somehow, I hope this young writer gains the wisdom and decency to feel deeply, deeply ashamed of that day’s cowardice.

Credit goes to a chain of bloggers reporting each others’ finds. Red State published Lydia McGrew, who published Dawn Eden, a well-known anti-abortion activist. McGrew’s analysis is solid:

It isn’t really about choice, is it? It’s about sex, the god Eros, before whom all else must fall. And as C.S. Lewis used to say (echoing Denis de Rougemont), when Eros is made a god, he becomes a demon.

I’m upset about the abortion part, but more about the deliberate, practiced rejection of virtue by American youth.

---

Shelly, my beautiful wife, adds that any 12-year-old engaging in sex has, by definition, been abused — if not by an individual, then by the culture at large. Hear, hear!

Michelle Malkin and Allahpundit report this morning that the McCain campaign has hired notorious open-borders activist Dr. Juan Hernandez as his Director of Hispanic Outreach. He apparently joined McCain’s staff quietly last November.

Hernandez regards Mexico and western America as a single region, and favors free access across the borders for workers. Hernandez not only encouraged Mexicans to break US immigration law, but worked in the Mexican community in the US to ensure that they did not “go native” by losing their Mexican identity and citizenship, while working for the Vicente Fox administration in Mexico and teaching at the University of Texas.

Check out the interview that Hot Air posted (Allahpundit link, above). He’s completely following the leftist playbook, tugging shamelessly on emotions while refusing to address any question directly, but saying that he is. He’s not very good at it, it’s obvious that he’s been coached. Keep your air sickness bag close.

Republican primary candidates are all pandering to conservative issues, but not credibly. By doing so, they’re acknowledging that the Republican party is mostly conservative, and that they’re out of touch with it. McCain’s version of this dance is to distance himself from amnesty, declaring that he’s never supported amnesty. This is the same McCain, however, who cussed at the thought of the border fence, whose Immigration Reform Act allowed law-breaking immigrants to become citizens after paying a small fine, and who now has hired, not an open-borders moderate like himself, but a full-blow advocate for MexAmeriCanada (with a hat tip to Glenn Beck for the nomenclature).

A family friend of mine works on Russ Feingold’s staff. He’s a Progressive. He can’t stand McCain; “He’s duplicitous,” says my friend. I see what he means, but frankly, it doesn’t surprise me. I’ve written enough about McCain that he’s earned his own category.

I’m flexible, but I absolutely shudder at the thought that this man might become President. If he runs against Clinton, I’ll duct tape my head so it doesn’t explode (another nod to Glenn Beck) and vote for him, but in any other election, I won’t pull the level for John McCain.

From Dr. Juan Hernandez on Nightline, June 7 , 2001, courtesy of The Corner:

I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’

Does this sound like sound US policy to you?