It’s all in how you present a subject. A recent study currently making its way through reportage shows a slight negative correlation between number of sex partners and GPA in high school. The headlines depend on who you read. Some headlines (linked to the articles) for example:
Survey: Sex affects grades and Teen sex doesn’t cause bad grades and Teen Sex Not Always Bad for Grades all cite the same study presented to the American Sociological Association in Atlanta yesterday. The American Family Council declared that the study confirms the negative link between teenage sexuality and academic performance.
It really doesn’t. There was no academic difference between abstinent kids and those who have committed relationships including sex. But girls in the promiscuous hook-up crowd earned GPA’s of 0.16 points less than virgins. That’s about 1/3 of the way between an A and an A-. Horrors.
But everyone knows that the adolescent emotional problems that lead to promiscuity also tend to lead to bad grades. But that’s just folk wisdom; common sense. Now there is an Actual Study to confirm the correlation. It’s a pity that none of the coverage I’ve found links to the study itself.
Christopher Hitchens has esophageal cancer. He is undergoing chemotherapy. His prognosis is not good, as this is a particularly nasty form of cancer with a low survival rate.
It turns out that many people are praying for his recovery, which I find ironic but wonderful. This is, I’ve been told, what true christianity is supposed to be like—extending the benevolence of your faith to those who might qualify as an enemy. If only all christians were like that. If only those who are like that were the loudest voices.
Unfortunately, the screaming meme misanthropic anti-intellectual pre-Enlightenment ignoramus branch of the movement tends to dominate a lot of the discourse, from the supporters of Proposition 8 to those who are not only praying for Hitch to die, but are sending notice of such prayers to public fora and putting megaphone to mouth so as many people as they can blast with their message will hear.
[More . . . ]
The Tea Party apparently did well in Missouri during the mid-term primaries this week. They (or someone) managed to stage contests for most Republican candidates, while most Democrats ran unopposed in our state. Why might anyone do this?
This piece of “legislation” is an arguably unconstitutional attempt to stop Health Care Reform by claiming States Rights against an unpopular provision in the Obama plan: Mandatory Health Insurance. Universal insurance is an attempt to pay for the impending regulation doing away with preexisting condition coverage denials. If everyone is covered, then there will be no preexisting conditions. But if everyone can sign up only when they need it and insurers cannot deny coverage, then insurers will go bankrupt and the Federal Government will have to completely take over. This is what they want? But Missourians voted overwhelmingly in favor of denying the Federal Government the right to enforce this provision necessary to interstate commerce.
But if you look at detailed election results, you’ll see that the vote on Proposition C is proportional to the ratio of Republicans to others who bothered to vote. In a state that was razor-close in November 2008, three Republicans showed up for each Democrat to vote in this primary.
Here is another view of this Proposition: What the passage of Proposition C in Missouri means, and what it does not mean. In brief, it is grandstanding. Given the likely turnout at the polls, and given the correct wording, it was an unsinkable piece of “voter mandate” with no actual significance. But it looks good as a jab-in-the-eye to an embattled administration. Unless you actually read about the issue.
But the point was to pick one unpopular clause of the 2,500 page law, and publicly display how “the people” are against the whole thing. I’m curious to see how the Tea Party will stack the November election. Will other states be so dumb?
I found this speech of JFK’s to be tremendously powerful, and the applicability to today’s situation should be obvious. Kennedy was speaking to the American Newspaper Publisher’s Association on April 27th, 1961. The whole speech is worth reading, but I wanted to highlight a few key excerpts, especially in the context of Wikileaks’ release of war documents from the Afghanistan theater. Kennedy simultaneously pleads for a more well-informed public, while arguing that the press ought to be mindful of national security issues in choosing which stories to publish. You can almost imagine him talking about the danger posed by terrorists in the present day, rather than the danger of Communism in the Cold-war 1960s:
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.
Pity Tony Hayward, erstwhile boss of BP. He’s really had it rough. He’s been “demonized and vilified”, to use his own words. The poor CEO was so busy dealing with the massive oil spill perpetrated by his company that he almost missed watching his yacht race in a very important race! Almost, but he was able to watch the race anyway. Because, you know, someone else was probably working on cleaning up the oil fouling the Gulf of Mexico. It’s not really the CEO’s job, you see. It’s more of a job for the “small people” of the world.
“Life isn’t fair. Sometimes you step off the pavement and get hit by a bus,” Hayward said recently. Yes, that’s true. And sometimes, you end up the CEO of one of the most powerful oil companies in the world. A company that has a long history of criminal and ethical violations that should make them unfit to operate a lemonade stand, much less a major multinational corporation with power to contaminate the entire Gulf of Mexico– and perhaps, Beyond!
Summary: A chilling portrait of everyday life in the world’s most fanatically totalitarian state.
When the Cold War ended, communism came tumbling down worldwide. The Soviet Union disintegrated, the Warsaw Pact nations joined the West, and though China’s authoritarian government still stands, its economy has become capitalist in all but name. But one true communist state still exists, defiant in its isolation, sealed off from the outside world by almost impenetrable barriers. That state is North Korea, the topic of Barbara Demick’s superb book Nothing to Envy. By interviewing some of the few who’ve successfully escaped, Demick weaves a frighteningly compelling narrative of what everyday life is like in the world’s most brutal and reclusive dictatorship.
Isolated from the outside world, North Korea has developed into a cult of personality rivaling anything found in the most fanatical religion. Its first president, Kim Il-sung, and his son and successor Kim Jong-il aren’t just the absolute rulers of the country, they’re hailed as divine saviors, literally able to perform miracles: