Posts
In principle, people choose not to commit crimes when the risks exceed the potential rewards.
How then, can you deter terrorism when the terrorist embraces death, even to the point of considering it a fitting and honorable conclusion to an honorable action.
Let’s complicate the issue. Everyone knows that today’s terrorism is nearly always Islamic in origin and roots. We also understand that while Islamic terrorists occasionally target Westerners, their victims are almost exclusively their fellow Muslims,
It is also clear that the reputation of Islam in the world has suffered grievously from the behavior of terrorists who declare that they are acting in the name of Islam.
In the best of worlds law-abiding members of the Muslim community would simply step up and put an end to the terrorism that us compromising their own honor and dignity in the world.
The vast majority of Muslims are honorable and law-abiding. It would appear that they have been so completely terrorized by al Qaeda and its fellow-travellers that they have been beaten into inaction.
Some Muslims have asked, reasonably: how do you figure deter people who clearly and simply want to die? Isn’t capital punishment the ultimate price?
It is not an easy problem, and the solution is not likely to be very pretty.
Take the example of what has been happening throughout Iraq since the tide turned against the terrorists and insurgents.
It is not pretty. The New York Times reported this yesterday: “Tribal leaders say that scores of family members of insurgents have been attacked and killed in recent years as Iraqis turned against Al Qaeda and other militant groups. Insurgents’ families have been driven from their homes and villages, accused of being complicit in their loved ones’ crimes or simply guilty by association.”
Or try this: “There is little sympathy for families associated with the foreign and homegrown Qaeda fighters who slaughtered thousands of Iraqis and tilted the country toward chaos. The militants’ wives and widows are pariahs. Their young children are not legally recognized by Iraq’s government.”
You might think that this extremely rough justice can only pertain in a lawless nation, where the judicial system is barely functional.
Yet, there is no such thing, to my knowledge, as a legal system that metes out punishment to the innocent wives and children of criminals, even war criminals.
Some of this involves shaming and shunning, but some of it also involves summary execution.
As we should know, shaming as punishment, is not limited to the individual. If you are related to Bernard Madoff, his disgrace will be visited on you and yours. That was why his son hung himself in his Soho loft.
In a better world we would say that economic growth and development is the cure for terrorism. In our world, we still have a very serious problem with terrorism. Muslims are, in some ways, the ultimate victims of these activities.
The question I have been mulling over is twofold: do you have anotherway to disincentivize terrorist actions? If revenge merely involved shunning and ostracizing the families of terrorists, without the summary executions, would you consider it an acceptable deterrent? If there is no other way, could you approve the kinds of actions that are taking place in Iraq today?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Anthony Weiner: Truth or Consequences
Anthony Weiner told the truth, or at least we have been led to believe.
Anthony Weiner feels deeply ashamed of his behavior, or so he would lead us to believe.
Anthony Weiner insists that he takes total responsibility for his actions, or so he says.
Yet, he did not fall on his sword; he did not resign his office; he declared that he is going back to work.
Perhaps in today’s Clintonian Democratic party you take responsibility when you say that you are taking responsibility. It reminds me of Janet Reno’s heartfelt apology for ordering the attack on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco some years back. Dozens of human beings were incinerated in the attack, many of them children.
Janet Reno went before a Congressional committee and declared, her face trembling, that she felt really, really bad about it. As did we all.
She did not resign. This told us that she did not take responsibility. Unless she was not the one who gave the order-- a plausible idea-- she did not feel sufficiently responsible to pay a price for her dereliction.
The same applies to the unfortunate Congressman from Queens.
Like Janet Reno, he is all truth, no consequences.
While he may be telling the truth, Weiner's failure to accept any consequences beyond his own bad feelings tells us that his shame is a sham. He feels very badly for having been caught, but he does not accept that his actions reflect on his character or on his ability to do his job.
Given the amount of salacious and semi-salacious material that is circulating on the web, we can now look forward to a stream of tabloid headlines and images of the unfortunate Congressman.
Never let it be said that Anthony Weiner does not have the best interestsof the New York Post at heart.
It will all continue until Weiner resigns. I predict, again, that his next step will be, as he suggested today, to go into therapy.
Anthony Weiner feels deeply ashamed of his behavior, or so he would lead us to believe.
Anthony Weiner insists that he takes total responsibility for his actions, or so he says.
Yet, he did not fall on his sword; he did not resign his office; he declared that he is going back to work.
Perhaps in today’s Clintonian Democratic party you take responsibility when you say that you are taking responsibility. It reminds me of Janet Reno’s heartfelt apology for ordering the attack on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco some years back. Dozens of human beings were incinerated in the attack, many of them children.
Janet Reno went before a Congressional committee and declared, her face trembling, that she felt really, really bad about it. As did we all.
She did not resign. This told us that she did not take responsibility. Unless she was not the one who gave the order-- a plausible idea-- she did not feel sufficiently responsible to pay a price for her dereliction.
The same applies to the unfortunate Congressman from Queens.
Like Janet Reno, he is all truth, no consequences.
While he may be telling the truth, Weiner's failure to accept any consequences beyond his own bad feelings tells us that his shame is a sham. He feels very badly for having been caught, but he does not accept that his actions reflect on his character or on his ability to do his job.
Given the amount of salacious and semi-salacious material that is circulating on the web, we can now look forward to a stream of tabloid headlines and images of the unfortunate Congressman.
Never let it be said that Anthony Weiner does not have the best interestsof the New York Post at heart.
It will all continue until Weiner resigns. I predict, again, that his next step will be, as he suggested today, to go into therapy.
The Arab Fall
It looks like the famous Arab Spring is bypassing the Arab Summer and quickly becoming the Arab Fall. Could the Arab Winter be far behind?
We all recall the whiff of freedom that seemed to be wafting across the Arab world. Having begun in Tunisia, it quickly spread to Egypt. With the sometimes tacit, sometimes overt support of the Obama administration it succeeded in overthrowing long time American allies who had become rebranded as tyrants.
Now, there is an open war in Libya, a civil war in Yemen, an ongoing violent uprising in Syria, and skirmishes in Bahrain.
At the time of Tahrir Square no small number of great thinkers and columnists were proclaiming the new wave of freedom. Today, their idealism looks more like adolescent enthusiasm than sober adult judgment.
It’s useful to recognize how wrong so many of them were, and to note that others saw the reality far more clearly.
For yet another reality check, today we read a report by Harvard professor and Hoover Institute fellow, Niall Ferguson. Link here.
For my part I find it enormously encouraging to see his articles published in Newsweek.
How does the Egyptian Revolution look today? The situation is getting worse and worse. A revolution that was supposedly designed to create jobs, prosperity, and democratic institutions is fast producing none of the above.
Ferguson explains: “In a report published last month, the Institute of International Finance predicted that growth in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia will fall from 4.4 percent in 2010 to -0.5 percent this year. Egypt’s economy will contract by 2.5 percent, Yemen’s by 4 percent.
“This is partly because revolutions themselves cause damage and disrupt work. Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics estimates that the economic losses incurred when the crowds thronged Tahrir Square were about $1.7 billion. Add to that the subsequent losses in export earnings and revenue from tourism (journalists rush in where holidaymakers fear to tread). Then comes the cost of the ongoing disruption due to strikes and the enforced return of more than a million migrant workers fleeing war-torn Libya.
“The big story, however, is capital flight. Egyptian businessmen complain of soaring crime in the cities, the difficulty of carrying out normal transactions, and, above all, nerve--racking political uncertainty. Rich Arabs do not trust this revolution. Since January they have been rushing to get their cash into safe havens, some arriving in London or Zurich with suitcases full of cash. According to Reuters, the country’s foreign--exchange reserves fell by as much as a third in the first three months of the year. Al-Hayat newspaper estimates that $30 billion has left Egypt since the onset of the Arab Spring.”
The mix of violent revolution, grandiose aspirations, and non-stop protests is not the best way to generate economic growth and new jobs. No one should be surprised.
Ferguson puts it in historical perspective: “Such is the life cycle of revolutions. What begins with euphoric crowds soon slides into a second phase of economic paralysis. The same happened in France after the initial “bliss” of 1789 and in Russia after 1917. In each case, exuberance at the overthrow of the old regime was swiftly succeeded by exasperation at the decline in living standards. And that was what gave the political extremists their opportunity to peddle their radical ideology of war against internal and external foes. Yesterday, the Jacobins and Bolsheviks. Tomorrow, I fear, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.”
We all recall the whiff of freedom that seemed to be wafting across the Arab world. Having begun in Tunisia, it quickly spread to Egypt. With the sometimes tacit, sometimes overt support of the Obama administration it succeeded in overthrowing long time American allies who had become rebranded as tyrants.
Now, there is an open war in Libya, a civil war in Yemen, an ongoing violent uprising in Syria, and skirmishes in Bahrain.
At the time of Tahrir Square no small number of great thinkers and columnists were proclaiming the new wave of freedom. Today, their idealism looks more like adolescent enthusiasm than sober adult judgment.
It’s useful to recognize how wrong so many of them were, and to note that others saw the reality far more clearly.
For yet another reality check, today we read a report by Harvard professor and Hoover Institute fellow, Niall Ferguson. Link here.
For my part I find it enormously encouraging to see his articles published in Newsweek.
How does the Egyptian Revolution look today? The situation is getting worse and worse. A revolution that was supposedly designed to create jobs, prosperity, and democratic institutions is fast producing none of the above.
Ferguson explains: “In a report published last month, the Institute of International Finance predicted that growth in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia will fall from 4.4 percent in 2010 to -0.5 percent this year. Egypt’s economy will contract by 2.5 percent, Yemen’s by 4 percent.
“This is partly because revolutions themselves cause damage and disrupt work. Egypt’s Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics estimates that the economic losses incurred when the crowds thronged Tahrir Square were about $1.7 billion. Add to that the subsequent losses in export earnings and revenue from tourism (journalists rush in where holidaymakers fear to tread). Then comes the cost of the ongoing disruption due to strikes and the enforced return of more than a million migrant workers fleeing war-torn Libya.
“The big story, however, is capital flight. Egyptian businessmen complain of soaring crime in the cities, the difficulty of carrying out normal transactions, and, above all, nerve--racking political uncertainty. Rich Arabs do not trust this revolution. Since January they have been rushing to get their cash into safe havens, some arriving in London or Zurich with suitcases full of cash. According to Reuters, the country’s foreign--exchange reserves fell by as much as a third in the first three months of the year. Al-Hayat newspaper estimates that $30 billion has left Egypt since the onset of the Arab Spring.”
The mix of violent revolution, grandiose aspirations, and non-stop protests is not the best way to generate economic growth and new jobs. No one should be surprised.
Ferguson puts it in historical perspective: “Such is the life cycle of revolutions. What begins with euphoric crowds soon slides into a second phase of economic paralysis. The same happened in France after the initial “bliss” of 1789 and in Russia after 1917. In each case, exuberance at the overthrow of the old regime was swiftly succeeded by exasperation at the decline in living standards. And that was what gave the political extremists their opportunity to peddle their radical ideology of war against internal and external foes. Yesterday, the Jacobins and Bolsheviks. Tomorrow, I fear, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.”
Sunday, June 5, 2011
"Heading Towards the Economic Abyss"
What if the stock market declined and nobody noticed. For the past five weeks the market averages have been declining. The strange part is that no one seems to be very concerned. Link here.
If the market were crashing, everyone would notice. We respond to dramatic events, like hemorrhages, but try to ignore slow bleeds, as though they will stop on their own.
Many people have been lulled back into the stock markets. They are fully invested, so they have adopted the buy, hold, and pray attitude.
Of course, the real basis for contrarian investment psychology is that once everyone is fully invested there is no new cash to keep buying stocks.
Besides, investors know that stocks are the only way to earn a return on their money. They have also become convinced that, if things take a serious turn for the worse the Federal Reserve will come dashing to the rescue with another round of quantitative easing.
Besides, where else are they going to put their money?
They are not going to put it into real estate. Speaking of slow bleeds, the housing market has fallen for just about every month for nearly five years. The dreaded double dip seems to be upon us. We have just learned that the recent decline in the price of homes surpasses the one suffered during the Great Depression.
The nation’s economic health is basically on life support. As James Grant suggested, and as I posted a while back, the only question is whether the collapse is going to be fast and ugly or slow and ugly. Link here.
While we all agree that the path to a solution lies in drastic cuts to the federal budget, to say nothing of the state and city, budgets, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this “fast and ugly” approach will not be painful.
As of now the stock market decline has been slow and ugly. Given the Fed’s past behavior there is no guarantee that it will become fast and ugly, but, once it does, it will be too late for many of us.
And then there is Marc Faber, market prognosticator, proprietor of the Gloom Doom and Boom report, who explains: “No I don’t think [Obama has his priorities straight]... because the priority would be to essentially make the US competitive, and by pursuing expansionary fiscal policies that enlarge the government, you atrophied the private sector. In other words, the private sector is hurt by too much government involvement.
“Like my friend... says, we have to pay more and more tax for government officials to harass us more and more and implement more and more regulation. And that of course is not a way to create prosperity. If you have a large corporation or a corporation, you are more likely to hire people outside the US than in the US.” Link here.
In Faber’s words: “I think [Obama] will be reelected because we have some kind of a tyranny of the masses. You have essentially more people getting handouts than large tax payers. And so they are huge voting block. Then you have the unions, also large voting block. And then you have the government officials. They don’t want to have cutbacks in government and be fired. They essentially are paid more than the private sector. So again a large voting block.”
Obama’s legacy might involve a cultural transformation pitting the nation’s haves against the have-nots? In place of one America, Obama seems to want to produce two Americas where the gap between rich and poor becomes increasingly vast, and increasingly likely to produce conflict.
Does this make Obama a demagogue? Of course it does. By appealing to the baser human emotions, by making most of the country depend on the government, by channeling that nation’s anger against the wealthy, he is a classic demagogue.
Unfortunately, we use the word “demagogic” so often now that it has been drained of its meaning. Yet, no one has failed to notice that the Democratic party and its leader are demagoguing the Ryan budget, trying to make the Republicans into the party of privilege and the Democrats into the party of the masses.
The greater the chasm between rich and poor, the more the nation will be divided against itself.
If the Democrats can convince the elderly, many of whom are not poor, that rich Republicans want to take their Medicare and Social Security away, then they will win.
The classical example of the outcome of liberal policies is of course New York City, where 40,000 people pay half the taxes. And where the middle class is being driven into extinction.
After 29 months of Obama the national mood has deteriorated along with the nation's finances.
The Daily Beast has this to say when introducing a new poll coducted by Doug Schoen: “Gas and grocery prices are soaring, the housing market is crashing to new lows, and yet another dismal jobs report has confirmed a stubbornly high unemployment rate. Could the anger fueling the Arab Spring soon bring club-wielding protesters to America?
“According to an exclusive poll by Newsweek and The Daily Beast, reality is beginning to break down Americans' normally optimistic attitude. Three-quarters of our respondents think the country is on the wrong track. A majority say the anxiety wrought by this recession has caused relationship problems and sleep deficiency. Two-thirds even report being angry at God.”
Now that the decorum of Tea Party rallies has been replaced by the thuggery of pro-union rallies, it is clear that an irrational, virulent form of anger is on the march in America.
We have not gotten to the level of club-wielding protesters, but we are probably not that far away.
Let’s not underestimate how national leadership has been stoking this new and nasty outrage.
We have been watching the Middle East descend into chaos, engulfed by violent protests. The administration seems willing to validate these tactics, seeing them as an instance of the masses rising up against their oppressors.
It has no idea who the protesters and has no idea of how to manage the ensuing chaos.
In so doing, the Obama administration has been telling the world, and has been telling its constituents that violent protest are a valid and acceptable form of political action.
Good bye, civility. Welcome, days of rage.
Have a nice day!
If the market were crashing, everyone would notice. We respond to dramatic events, like hemorrhages, but try to ignore slow bleeds, as though they will stop on their own.
Many people have been lulled back into the stock markets. They are fully invested, so they have adopted the buy, hold, and pray attitude.
Of course, the real basis for contrarian investment psychology is that once everyone is fully invested there is no new cash to keep buying stocks.
Besides, investors know that stocks are the only way to earn a return on their money. They have also become convinced that, if things take a serious turn for the worse the Federal Reserve will come dashing to the rescue with another round of quantitative easing.
Besides, where else are they going to put their money?
They are not going to put it into real estate. Speaking of slow bleeds, the housing market has fallen for just about every month for nearly five years. The dreaded double dip seems to be upon us. We have just learned that the recent decline in the price of homes surpasses the one suffered during the Great Depression.
The nation’s economic health is basically on life support. As James Grant suggested, and as I posted a while back, the only question is whether the collapse is going to be fast and ugly or slow and ugly. Link here.
While we all agree that the path to a solution lies in drastic cuts to the federal budget, to say nothing of the state and city, budgets, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that this “fast and ugly” approach will not be painful.
As of now the stock market decline has been slow and ugly. Given the Fed’s past behavior there is no guarantee that it will become fast and ugly, but, once it does, it will be too late for many of us.
How bad is it? Writing in the London Telegraph Nile Gardiner entitles recent post: “After 29 months of the most left-wing presidency in US history, the American superpower is heading towards the economic abyss.” Link here.
Gardiner offers a cogent analysis of the situation: “Years of profligate spending, massive bailouts and useless stimulus measures have made America poorer, not richer, and threaten the long-term economic foundations of this great country. President Obama’s big government experiment has been a dangerous failure, only further proof that the deadening hand of federal intervention is the last thing America needs at this time. The United States needs more economic freedom, less government regulation and spending, and lower taxes if it is to create jobs, wealth and prosperity, a message that seems to have been lost on the Obama presidency as it drives the United States towards the financial abyss.”And then there is Marc Faber, market prognosticator, proprietor of the Gloom Doom and Boom report, who explains: “No I don’t think [Obama has his priorities straight]... because the priority would be to essentially make the US competitive, and by pursuing expansionary fiscal policies that enlarge the government, you atrophied the private sector. In other words, the private sector is hurt by too much government involvement.
“Like my friend... says, we have to pay more and more tax for government officials to harass us more and more and implement more and more regulation. And that of course is not a way to create prosperity. If you have a large corporation or a corporation, you are more likely to hire people outside the US than in the US.” Link here.
Given his propensity for gloomy predictions, Faber also explains that he believes Obama will be re-elected.
He reasons that if you put a majority of people on the government dole, they are not likely to vote to reduce their stipends.
In Faber’s words: “I think [Obama] will be reelected because we have some kind of a tyranny of the masses. You have essentially more people getting handouts than large tax payers. And so they are huge voting block. Then you have the unions, also large voting block. And then you have the government officials. They don’t want to have cutbacks in government and be fired. They essentially are paid more than the private sector. So again a large voting block.”
Obama’s legacy might involve a cultural transformation pitting the nation’s haves against the have-nots? In place of one America, Obama seems to want to produce two Americas where the gap between rich and poor becomes increasingly vast, and increasingly likely to produce conflict.
Does this make Obama a demagogue? Of course it does. By appealing to the baser human emotions, by making most of the country depend on the government, by channeling that nation’s anger against the wealthy, he is a classic demagogue.
Unfortunately, we use the word “demagogic” so often now that it has been drained of its meaning. Yet, no one has failed to notice that the Democratic party and its leader are demagoguing the Ryan budget, trying to make the Republicans into the party of privilege and the Democrats into the party of the masses.
The greater the chasm between rich and poor, the more the nation will be divided against itself.
If the Democrats can convince the elderly, many of whom are not poor, that rich Republicans want to take their Medicare and Social Security away, then they will win.
The classical example of the outcome of liberal policies is of course New York City, where 40,000 people pay half the taxes. And where the middle class is being driven into extinction.
After 29 months of Obama the national mood has deteriorated along with the nation's finances.
The Daily Beast has this to say when introducing a new poll coducted by Doug Schoen: “Gas and grocery prices are soaring, the housing market is crashing to new lows, and yet another dismal jobs report has confirmed a stubbornly high unemployment rate. Could the anger fueling the Arab Spring soon bring club-wielding protesters to America?
“According to an exclusive poll by Newsweek and The Daily Beast, reality is beginning to break down Americans' normally optimistic attitude. Three-quarters of our respondents think the country is on the wrong track. A majority say the anxiety wrought by this recession has caused relationship problems and sleep deficiency. Two-thirds even report being angry at God.”
Now that the decorum of Tea Party rallies has been replaced by the thuggery of pro-union rallies, it is clear that an irrational, virulent form of anger is on the march in America.
We have not gotten to the level of club-wielding protesters, but we are probably not that far away.
Let’s not underestimate how national leadership has been stoking this new and nasty outrage.
We have been watching the Middle East descend into chaos, engulfed by violent protests. The administration seems willing to validate these tactics, seeing them as an instance of the masses rising up against their oppressors.
It has no idea who the protesters and has no idea of how to manage the ensuing chaos.
In so doing, the Obama administration has been telling the world, and has been telling its constituents that violent protest are a valid and acceptable form of political action.
Good bye, civility. Welcome, days of rage.
Have a nice day!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Anti-Semitism, San Francisco Style
If you’re on the lookout for anti-Semitism you don’t have to go any further than San Francisco.
As you probably know by now, the great bastion of liberal American thought is going to vote on whether or not to ban circumcision within the city. Apparently, Santa Monica is considering a similar proposal.
Considering that Jews, most prominently, prescribe circumcision for boys, do you smell the stench of anti-Semitism in this ballot initiative? Or do you just think that it’s a protest against Israel?
This morning I came across some examples of the literature that is being distributed in San Francisco in support of the circumcision ban.
Here’s a link.
You do not have to have taken any courses in critical theory to know where these images come from. They are stock anti-Semitic images, retired after the fall of the Third Reich, brought back to life by the liberals in San Francisco.
As you probably know by now, the great bastion of liberal American thought is going to vote on whether or not to ban circumcision within the city. Apparently, Santa Monica is considering a similar proposal.
Considering that Jews, most prominently, prescribe circumcision for boys, do you smell the stench of anti-Semitism in this ballot initiative? Or do you just think that it’s a protest against Israel?
This morning I came across some examples of the literature that is being distributed in San Francisco in support of the circumcision ban.
Here’s a link.
You do not have to have taken any courses in critical theory to know where these images come from. They are stock anti-Semitic images, retired after the fall of the Third Reich, brought back to life by the liberals in San Francisco.
Lena Chen Discovers Shame
Many people know the feeling. You worked your way up the high school status hierarchy until, in senior year, you basked in the glow that comes to those who have made it to the top.
You might not have been captain of the football team but you were an academic superstar. When you walked the halls, everyone know who you were. Freshmen and sophomores whispered your name with an admixture of awe and envy.
And then you were accepted to Harvard or Yale or Princeton. Parents around town told their children that they should emulate your wondrous example.
You were It. You were the Dude or the It Girl. They threw a party for you when you left for Harvard, proclaiming that you were now going to conquer the world.
Bright eyed and aglow you arrived at Harvard, only to discover that no one knew who you were, or much cared. From being the glory of your high school you have sunk into perfect anonymity. You might as well not have existed; you were invisible.
Some first year college students deal with the encroaching anomie by joining fraternities and sororities, by going out for the marching band or the rugby team, by working on the newspaper or the radio station.
Others stay lost. They give up on fitting in. They see themselves as permanent outsiders, suffering the grievous offense of being constantly ignored.
They begin to crave attention, any kind of attention. Without it they feel like they are going to starve. They decide that they must become famous, celebrated, someone.
They want people to know who they are, to talk about them in dorm bull sessions. They want their presence known. No matter what the cost.
Given the ambient culture, they think they can avenge the countless slights by becoming a campus celebrity. They might have learned that there is no such thing as bad publicity and that as long as people know who they are they will never again be anonymous.
If they are women they might have suffered through the mind-warp of a course in gender bending. They might have learned that men and women are the same, that sexuality is a positive force, and that they need to express theirs openly and honestly.
Or they might have dabbled in the works of sex-positive feminists like Jaclyn Friedman and her band of enablers. There they would have learned that they feel isolated, alone, and anonymous because they are not fully expressing their sexuality.
The path to popularity leads through hooking up. Is there a better and easier way to connect with boys? Once the boys know that you hook up, they take notice; they see you; they seek you out; they offer you attention and more.
Any old connection feels better than disconnection. If you’re a woman it’s relatively easy. You put out and they connect with you. They may not want to talk to you in the morning; they may not know your name; but still, you could have spent the evening at home, alone.
If you feel badly about it, your feminist enablers will tell you that it’s just a sign of residual guilt. You need to do it more, to be more free and open about your sexuality.
Of course, anyone can hook up. There is no real distinction in that. You become one of the easy girls on campus, the kind that boys seek out when they are looking for some quick, painless pleasure.
Even if you become the hook up queen, you have still not reached the status of a genuine campus celebrity.
If your name is Lena Chen, and you are attending Harvard, you then take the next step: you start a sex blog. Link here.
Allow Chen to describe her experience: “During my sophomore year, a long-simmering discontentment with this academic pressure cooker led me to start SexAndTheIvy.com, a blog about my undergraduate misadventures and the lessons that I learned from screwing and screwing up. I wrote about navigating hookups, self-medicating with alcohol, and feeling like a misfit at an elite school where everyone else seemed so much more self-assured. But unlike your typical diary of a disenchanted youth, these thoughts were published on the Web for all to see. Little did I know that the website would find its way into the browser windows of sympathetic students across the country. For the next two and a half years in college, in between attending queer and feminist rallies and talking friends out of careers in finance, I confessed insecurities and gave graphic accounts of sexcapades to an audience of thousands, many of them my own peers.”
How did that work out for her? It didn’t work out very well. Somehow or other, no one ever warned her about the social cost of flagrant exhibitionism.
She got attention, far more attention than she had ever imagined, but it was the wrong kind of attention. She became a campus celebrity. Everyone was talking about her. Yet, it didn't feel exhilarating. It felt like shame.
In her words: “Shame wasn't something that came naturally to me. It was something that I learned against my will, and now that I know it inside and out, I don't know how one can possibly unlearn it. Sexual freedom is a sham. Over my blogging years, I've become acquainted with enough erstwhile sexual radicals to realize that my story is not an isolated incident.”
Somehow or other, her feminists enablers had not told her about this. They cared less for her well being than for their cause. Their advice had flung her out into a world she did not understand, the world of public reputation.
And they had not told her that once you make a spectacle of your sexuality, once you become a campus celebrity, it is very difficult to go back to the status quo ante tempestatem.
Lena Chen gradually became aware of her dilemma. The more she understood it, the worse it became. As she tried to figure out how to make it all go away, and as she started seeing how difficult it is to banish images from other people’s minds, she nearly had a nervous breakdown.
Was her situation hopeless? Is a bad reputation forever? Not at all. It just feels that way. This is yet another reason, when you are feeling like the world has just collapsed around you and that you are irrevocably lost, why you should not go with your feelings.
Difficult, yes; painful, yes; very hard, yes; hopeless, no.
You may believe that the Mad Ave. term, "rebranding", is an offense against everything you hold sacred, but Chen managed to use it to her advantage,.
She found a boyfriend; happily stopped writing her sex blog; and set out to rebrand herself.
here she describes her transformation: “Trolling my blog isn't interesting anymore now that I'm not habitually liquored-up and bed-hopping. I got my shit together, gained the respect of others in my field, and now I play house with my boyfriend. I share recaps of events I've spoken at and update readers with travel announcements. I post pictures of my extremely photogenic dog and the home-cooked dinner I made from scratch. I've built a persona and a brand. I'm Lena Chen, the Harvard girl who went wild, then went Betty Homemaker, and retained her feminist street cred to boot. For the most part, these aren't just superficial changes. My close friends remark that I'm more stable than I've ever been. My readers -- including those who have been reading me for years -- marvel at my seemingly perfect relationship and ask me how I make it seem so effortless. In three short years, I transitioned from divulging every secret worry to refraining from revealing any vulnerabilities at all.”
Losing respect is easy. Regaining it is difficult, painful, and time consuming.
Clearly, it would have been better had Chen never written a sex blog. But her ability to recover her reputation and her dignity shows the way for young women who have found themselves in similar situations.
You might not have been captain of the football team but you were an academic superstar. When you walked the halls, everyone know who you were. Freshmen and sophomores whispered your name with an admixture of awe and envy.
And then you were accepted to Harvard or Yale or Princeton. Parents around town told their children that they should emulate your wondrous example.
You were It. You were the Dude or the It Girl. They threw a party for you when you left for Harvard, proclaiming that you were now going to conquer the world.
Bright eyed and aglow you arrived at Harvard, only to discover that no one knew who you were, or much cared. From being the glory of your high school you have sunk into perfect anonymity. You might as well not have existed; you were invisible.
Some first year college students deal with the encroaching anomie by joining fraternities and sororities, by going out for the marching band or the rugby team, by working on the newspaper or the radio station.
Others stay lost. They give up on fitting in. They see themselves as permanent outsiders, suffering the grievous offense of being constantly ignored.
They begin to crave attention, any kind of attention. Without it they feel like they are going to starve. They decide that they must become famous, celebrated, someone.
They want people to know who they are, to talk about them in dorm bull sessions. They want their presence known. No matter what the cost.
Given the ambient culture, they think they can avenge the countless slights by becoming a campus celebrity. They might have learned that there is no such thing as bad publicity and that as long as people know who they are they will never again be anonymous.
If they are women they might have suffered through the mind-warp of a course in gender bending. They might have learned that men and women are the same, that sexuality is a positive force, and that they need to express theirs openly and honestly.
Or they might have dabbled in the works of sex-positive feminists like Jaclyn Friedman and her band of enablers. There they would have learned that they feel isolated, alone, and anonymous because they are not fully expressing their sexuality.
The path to popularity leads through hooking up. Is there a better and easier way to connect with boys? Once the boys know that you hook up, they take notice; they see you; they seek you out; they offer you attention and more.
Any old connection feels better than disconnection. If you’re a woman it’s relatively easy. You put out and they connect with you. They may not want to talk to you in the morning; they may not know your name; but still, you could have spent the evening at home, alone.
If you feel badly about it, your feminist enablers will tell you that it’s just a sign of residual guilt. You need to do it more, to be more free and open about your sexuality.
Of course, anyone can hook up. There is no real distinction in that. You become one of the easy girls on campus, the kind that boys seek out when they are looking for some quick, painless pleasure.
Even if you become the hook up queen, you have still not reached the status of a genuine campus celebrity.
If your name is Lena Chen, and you are attending Harvard, you then take the next step: you start a sex blog. Link here.
Allow Chen to describe her experience: “During my sophomore year, a long-simmering discontentment with this academic pressure cooker led me to start SexAndTheIvy.com, a blog about my undergraduate misadventures and the lessons that I learned from screwing and screwing up. I wrote about navigating hookups, self-medicating with alcohol, and feeling like a misfit at an elite school where everyone else seemed so much more self-assured. But unlike your typical diary of a disenchanted youth, these thoughts were published on the Web for all to see. Little did I know that the website would find its way into the browser windows of sympathetic students across the country. For the next two and a half years in college, in between attending queer and feminist rallies and talking friends out of careers in finance, I confessed insecurities and gave graphic accounts of sexcapades to an audience of thousands, many of them my own peers.”
How did that work out for her? It didn’t work out very well. Somehow or other, no one ever warned her about the social cost of flagrant exhibitionism.
She got attention, far more attention than she had ever imagined, but it was the wrong kind of attention. She became a campus celebrity. Everyone was talking about her. Yet, it didn't feel exhilarating. It felt like shame.
In her words: “Shame wasn't something that came naturally to me. It was something that I learned against my will, and now that I know it inside and out, I don't know how one can possibly unlearn it. Sexual freedom is a sham. Over my blogging years, I've become acquainted with enough erstwhile sexual radicals to realize that my story is not an isolated incident.”
Somehow or other, her feminists enablers had not told her about this. They cared less for her well being than for their cause. Their advice had flung her out into a world she did not understand, the world of public reputation.
And they had not told her that once you make a spectacle of your sexuality, once you become a campus celebrity, it is very difficult to go back to the status quo ante tempestatem.
Lena Chen gradually became aware of her dilemma. The more she understood it, the worse it became. As she tried to figure out how to make it all go away, and as she started seeing how difficult it is to banish images from other people’s minds, she nearly had a nervous breakdown.
Was her situation hopeless? Is a bad reputation forever? Not at all. It just feels that way. This is yet another reason, when you are feeling like the world has just collapsed around you and that you are irrevocably lost, why you should not go with your feelings.
Difficult, yes; painful, yes; very hard, yes; hopeless, no.
You may believe that the Mad Ave. term, "rebranding", is an offense against everything you hold sacred, but Chen managed to use it to her advantage,.
She found a boyfriend; happily stopped writing her sex blog; and set out to rebrand herself.
here she describes her transformation: “Trolling my blog isn't interesting anymore now that I'm not habitually liquored-up and bed-hopping. I got my shit together, gained the respect of others in my field, and now I play house with my boyfriend. I share recaps of events I've spoken at and update readers with travel announcements. I post pictures of my extremely photogenic dog and the home-cooked dinner I made from scratch. I've built a persona and a brand. I'm Lena Chen, the Harvard girl who went wild, then went Betty Homemaker, and retained her feminist street cred to boot. For the most part, these aren't just superficial changes. My close friends remark that I'm more stable than I've ever been. My readers -- including those who have been reading me for years -- marvel at my seemingly perfect relationship and ask me how I make it seem so effortless. In three short years, I transitioned from divulging every secret worry to refraining from revealing any vulnerabilities at all.”
Losing respect is easy. Regaining it is difficult, painful, and time consuming.
Clearly, it would have been better had Chen never written a sex blog. But her ability to recover her reputation and her dignity shows the way for young women who have found themselves in similar situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)