I Am Clueless, Hear Me Roar.

In the pages of Wednesday's Daily Nebraskan, columnist Sarah Melecki made it clear that she's really ticked off at some guy named Mark Regnerus.

According to Melecki, Regnerus is the epitome of patriarchal evil:

Mark Regnerus, who published an opinion piece in the April 26 Washington Post, thinks it’s a tragedy that women are statistically choosing to get married at a later age now than they did in, say, 1890. His reasoning? According to Regnerus, as a woman ages her “market value” decreases, while a man’s increases.


...
This guy thinks that my value is wrapped up in my ability to produce fertile eggs. And apparently as I get closer to menopause, I get more and more worthless.
...
But whether or not I decide to have children, I am not worthless. I contribute to the good of society, and I challenge the ideas of closed-minded sexists like you, Mr. Regnerus.
...
Don’t let society pressure you into anything, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from people like Mark Regnerus, it’s that our world is full of people who are stuck in a black and white television set with a 1950’s idea of marriage. Let’s make sure we’re living in the digital era.


Because I happen to live in the digital era, I harnessed the magic of the interweb to find the opinion piece that scarred Melecki for life. Now, my only question is: Did Melecki actually read it? Any of it? A cursory glance at the article reveals a remarkably benign column arguing for the freedom to marry young -- a far cry from a sexist polemic:

In my research on young adults' romantic relationships, many women report feeling peer pressure to avoid giving serious thought to marriage until they're at least in their late 20s. If you're seeking a mate in college, you're considered a pariah, someone after her "MRS degree."

...
Sara, a 19-year-old college student from Dallas, equated thinking about marrying her boyfriend with staging a rebellion. Her parents "want my full attention on grades and school because they want me to get a good job," she told me. Understandable. But our children now sense that marrying young may be not simply foolish but also wrong and socially harmful. And yet today, as ever, marriage wisely entered into remains good for the economy and the community, good for one's personal well-being, good for wealth creation and, yes, good for the environment, too.
...
It is is not just an economic problem. It's also a biological and emotional one. I realize that it's not cool to say that, but my job is to map trends, not to affirm them. (emphasis added) Marriage will be there for men when they're ready. And most do get there. Eventually. But according to social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, women's "market value" declines steadily as they age, while men's tends to rise in step with their growing resources (that is, money and maturation). Countless studies -- and endless anecdotes -- reinforce their conclusion.

The focal point of Melecki's rant -- that Mark Regnerus believes women should be valued based on their ability to produce children -- is patently false. Regnerus makes no value judgements at all. He certainly doesn't say that society should discard women who can't make babies. He merely points out the bleak truth that, generally speaking, men consider younger women to be more desirable spouses. There's a difference between someone's "market value" on the dating scene and their worth as a human being -- a nuance that Melecki seems incapable of detecting.

Melecki's warning that "you shouldn't let society pressure you into anything" is rather ironic, considering that it happens to be the main thesis of Regnerus's article. Instead of commanding women to conform to a 1950s mold, he simply tries to make the point that women should feel free to get married young if they want to. He offers no condemnation for people who choose not to marry. His article never even touches on the larger feminist debate over whether a woman should be valued based on her family or her work.

But it doesn't take long to realize that Melecki is simply using Regnerus as a springboard to segue into a dull screed against the evils of our patriarchal society:

From an early age girls are taught that marriage and motherhood are key goals in life. Dress up wedding gowns, happy endings in fairy tales, baby dolls and Playschool kitchens are forced upon little girls from the time they can walk until they decide they’re too old for toys. Everything is pink and frilly and is in preparation for being an obedient wife.



Boys, on the other hand, get to play with a variety of toys, from race cars to G.I. Joe. There may be a few toys marketed toward boys that prepare them for being a husband and father, but more often they get to choose from a wide array of art, video games or basketball.

I have three younger sisters, so I've witnessed the horror of baby dolls being "forced upon" little girls on several occasions. When they unwrap those little bundles of oppression, it only looks like they're happy. Deep down inside, there must be a pain I can't even imagine. (If only they could choose from a wide array of basketball like the boys!)

Melecki's piece demonstrates that militant feminists are the only people stuck in the 1950s. With the number of American women working outside the home hovering near 80%, there just isn't enough to get mad about in the "digital age." Thus, they conveniently construct a frightening fantasy realm where male oppression lurks beneath every pebble to convince themselves that their stale talking points are still relevant. Anyone who dares to present an opinion that appears to slightly contradict feminist dogma is promptly crucified.

It looks like the patriarchal oppressors don't have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.

The Trouble With Torture.

After the release of a series of Bush administration memos on the legality of "enhanced interrogation techniques," the battle over torture has returned with a vengeance.

Conservatives tend to believe that torture is a necessary evil. It isn't pretty -- but it saves lives. According to conservative news sources, information extracted via waterboarding from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed helped prevent a major terrorist attack on L.A.

Liberals assert that torture is morally wrong and damages America's standing in the world. The strongest opponents of torture would love to see Bush and Co. stand trial for war crimes.

Clearly, the President has to make some tough calls when it comes to keeping Americans safe. When thousands of innocent lives hang in the balance, the morality of torture doesn't seem so black and white.

If Obama knew he could save a city by subjecting a scary bearded man to intense physical discomfort, would he really stick to his principles?

Then again, can anyone ever be sure that torture will produce life-saving information?

By any measure, torture is a great way to get people to talk. Inflict enough pain, and someone will tell you what you want to hear. But what if the truth isn't what you want to hear? What if Mr. Death To America really doesn't know anything?

Then you get stuck with a steaming heap of bad intelligence. In fact, according to a new report from the Senate Armed Services Committee, much of Bush's faulty intelligence on the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda came out of torture sessions.

When you get right down to it, torture is a questionable tool at best. If the clock is ticking on an impending terror attack, torturing a bad guy could prevent the destruction. But it could also horribly mislead law enforcement and accomplish nothing.

Perhaps when the stakes are high enough, some just prefer a dubious gamble to nothing at all.

One Lump, Or Two?

The formula for a protest is simple:

You hold a sign adorned with an angry political message.

People who disagree with your message feel mad inside.
Sometimes, they argue with you.

People who agree with your message feel happy inside.
Sometimes, they give you high-fives.

If there are enough people holding signs with you, a TV crew arrives.
A 30 second clip of angry sign-wavers appears on the six o' clock news.

The tea party protests didn't deviate from the formula. But it seems that some people were unfamiliar with the whole protest thing.

An indignant Huffington Post featured a slideshow of the "ten most offensive" signs from the tea party protests. A couple of them -- gasp! -- compared Obama to Hitler!

Can you imagine? Comparing an American president to Hitler! At a protest!

Oh, the horror of it all.

After CNN reporter Susan Roesgen failed at sharing the stimulus gospel with a protestor, she noted the "anti-government" tone of the protest, and announced that it wasn't appropriate for "family viewing."

Indeed. Keep airing that garbage, and babies will start opposing redistributionary tax policies.

Were there some ignorant, angry people at the tea party protests? Yes. But nobody should come to a protest expecting a university lecture on political philosophy. A protest is a magical time when a bunch of people get mad at something together. Ugliness happens.

Arrr.

Pirates are back.

Like the pirates of old, modern pirates are no laughing matter. They plunder, kidnap, and in some cases, kill. And from the looks of things, the civilized world doesn't seem to know what to do with them.

What can be done?

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has a novel idea from the past: kill 'em.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."

Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Unfortunately, duking it out with pirates on the high seas isn't always a viable option. The Gulf of Aden, the locus of current pirate activity, is a major transportation corridor for oil. When pirates attempt to hijack a tanker full of flammable gold, engaging in a firefight may not have pleasant consequences. In any case, once pirates have captured a vessel, military action will probably end in the death of innocent hostages.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I'm guessing that if we want to take out the bad guys, the fight will have to take place on land. As long as pirates can take refuge in Eyl, and other lawless Somali cities, they'll keep coming back for booty. Whether anyone has the will to engage in a messy ground conflict in Somalia is another question.

The Audacity Of Giving Crappy Gifts To British People.

When Barack Obama gave Gordon Brown a set of 25 popular American films on DVD, people were puzzled. The dour English PM isn't known for his love of American cinema.

It didn't help that the ill-fated discs were region-coded for U.S. playback, making them as useless as bagels in British DVD players.

Now, thanks to Barack Obama, Queen Elizabeth will be sporting a shiny new iPod, loaded with videos of... herself.

Yeah.

In most situations, an iPod makes an awesome gift. I highly suggest that you buy me at least two. But for the Queen of England?

Obama can do better than this. However, it appears that he needs a bit of help. Fortunately, I'm willing to place my vast knowledge of British stereotypes at his disposal.

This is an exhaustive list of things that British people like:

- Tea.
- Biscuits and/or Scones.
- Small cars.
- Witty butlers.
- Poor dental care.

Take note, Mr. President. We can't afford another 1812.