Vox Popoli

I found this to be more than a little amusing:

By the age of 19, 80% of US males and 75% of women have lost their virginity, and 87% of college students have had sex. But this number appears to be much lower at elite (i.e. more intelligent) colleges. According to the article, only 56% of Princeton undergraduates have had intercourse. At Harvard 59% of the undergraduates are non-virgins, and at MIT, only a slight majority, 51%, have had intercourse. Further, only 65% of MIT graduate students have had sex.

The student surveys at MIT and Wellesley also compared virginity by academic major. The chart for Wellesley displayed below shows that 0% of studio art majors were virgins, but 72% of biology majors were virgins, and 83% of biochem and math majors were virgins! Similarly, at MIT 20% of ‘humanities’ majors were virgins, but 73% of biology majors.

I don’t know if you can really blame the graduates at elite East Coast universities for not having sex. I visited more than a few of them during my college years with the track team and I can honestly say that with the exception of Dartmouth, you could count the number of attractive women at Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown and other similar schools on one hand… and leave out your thumb. For a Minnesota boy accustomed to being literally surrounded on every side* by slender, pretty, Scandinavian blondes with blue eyes, these road trips always reminded me of Dante’s journey into the various circles of Hell.

Based on other correlations between atheism and college major, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that a primary cause of evangelical atheism – as opposed to mere skepticism or a personal lack of belief in a deity – is sexual frustration.

But highly intelligent people do tend to be creatures of extremes. Most of the very intelligent women that I knew at university were not sexually active, but a substantial percentage of those that were tended to fall in the “sexual freak” category.

I note that believing that an action is sinful is no basis for concluding that the believer will not engage in the sinful behavior. The Christian belief clearly states that ALL are fallen, including the believer, which is the very reason for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and the need to repent. And as numerous Christians have pointed out, if sin wasn’t fun, there wouldn’t be any need to preach against it.

On a tangential note, Cosmos earlier asked why some people believed prostitution was immoral. This is either a tremendously ignorant question or a misplaced one. The reason is that prostitution is a clear violation of the Biblical commandment to avoid fornication… and the Scripture even contains specific warnings to avoid prostitutes. Whether one believes in the holy nature of the Bible and its moral precepts or not, the reason is perfectly clear and has been for centuries.

A better question would have been why people, regardless of their beliefs regarding the immoral nature of prostitution, should oppose its legalization. I note that while I believe prostitution is clearly immoral, it should be legal on the basis of it being a simple service transaction like any other. Given that the Bible does not advocate the banning of prostitutes or a legal punishment for engaging their services, merely the personal avoidance of them, I see no religious justification for the modern legal ban on the time-honored profession.

*Seriously. I mean, the janitor at our Northwest gym looked a lot like Scarlett Johansson and no one ever thought for a second that she was anything out of the ordinary. In fact, she wasn’t even as pretty as the previous janitor.

Karl Rove lets slip a little inside information:

What must Bush make of that? [Karl Rove being an atheist]

I think it’s false to say that the president acts as if he believes he has God’s instructions. Compared to Jimmy Carter, he’s nowhere. He’s a Methodist, having joined his wife’s church in the end. He also claims that Jesus got him off the demon drink. He doesn’t believe it. His wife said, “If you don’t stop, I’m leaving and I’m taking the kids.” You can say that you got help from Jesus if you want, but that’s just a polite way of putting it in Texas.

I never trust any so-called Christian who prefers to refer to Christ instead of Jesus or Jesus Christ. I was certain that Bush was a complete fraud once I heard his answer about his favorite philosopher being “Christ”.

Brent also makes some good points about the difference between atheism the unbelief and atheism the ur-religion. He’s absolutely correct, regarding both the distinction between the two and his apparent distrust of the latter.

Mitt Romney gives every literate American a much better reason to avoid voting for him:

When asked his favorite novel in an interview shown yesterday on the Fox News Channel, Mitt Romney pointed to “Battlefield Earth,” a novel by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. That book was turned into a film by John Travolta, a Scientologist.

A spokesman said later it was one of Mr. Romney’s favorite novels.

“I’m not in favor of his religion by any means,” Mr. Romney, a Mormon, said. “But he wrote a book called ‘Battlefield Earth’ that was a very fun science-fiction book.

Being an avid reader of science fiction, I picked up a copy of Battlefield Earth at the library in junior high. I was pretty excited, since it was an absolutely massive tome which meant that it might take me more than two or three days to devour it.

It was not fun, it was bad. It was beyond bad. It was so horrifically awful that it remains to this day one of the very few novels that I have never finished reading. When sitting on various Nebula juries, one finds oneself in the position of having to read some impressively bad stuff, but in all my years, I have only once read a science fiction novel that was worse than Battlefield Earth.

This little glimpse into what passes for the mind of Mitt romney demonstrates, like few other things could, that Romney is the lightest of the various lightweights in the running for the Republican nomination. On the other hand, he does have Executive Hair, so at least he’d look good delivering his lines.

One is forced to conclude that there is no substantial difference between the requirements for a news anchor and a president. This bodes well for Fred Thompson, his resemblance to an amphibian notwithstanding, although my view is that we should cut to the chase and elect Christopher Walken.

At least the presidential press conferences and State of the Union addresses would be worth watching.

UPDATE – Mr. Regression to the Mean doesn’t seem to realize what this statement says about his own fitness to write opinion columns:

These questions to politicians about their favorite books are ridiculous. It takes time to read books, and time is something politicians don’t have. It’s more revealing to ask them what movies they like.

Well, at least we’ve put to rest the old, pernicious Platonic idea of the Philosopher-King.

I have no doubt that they don’t want to publish any names:

As the so-called “D.C. Madam” case unfolds in the nation’s capital, with alleged prostitution ringleader Jeane Palfrey claiming a list of thousands of prominent clients, Washington-area editors say they are following the story, but remain reluctant to print such a list, were it available, without serious scrutiny.

While they have no problem destroying reputations belonging to commoners, the Washington media is significantly more circumspect about soiling those belonging to the bi-factional ruling party. This media-political complex is much more interested in protecting its own than in reporting the truth or even making money.

After all, a little silence at just the right time can be worth a lot more than a scoop or two.

WFB worries about the long-term fate of the Republican Party:

There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

I find this intriguing, considering how crazy everyone thought I was when I was explaining that the Republican Party had reached its high water mark back when the conservative commentariat was babbling about permanent Republican dominance. WFB may be getting old and lost his fastball some time ago, but he is still head and shoulders above the junior leaguers who populate his magazine these days.

And the Republican Party will find it hard to survive, so long as the party leaders insist on selling out their only growing demographic, religious conservatives. Our old Bible study has around 15 couples and the average number of children per couple is probably greater than three. Nearly everyone homeschools, and perhaps 25 percent of them are already now what might be best described as ex-Republicans. That percentage appears likely to grow if Bush is replaced by another faux conservative.

These religious homeschoolers are the people that the Republican Party should be catering to, not ignoring, as they are a growing part of the population and breeding faster than left-leaning atheist professors can convert their kids to secular liberalism. Bidding against the Democrats for the Hispanic vote by importing illegal aliens is a fool’s strategy that guarantees irrelevance in the long term.

The Atomizer is probably correct, but never fear, I have the answer:

I predict here and now that well before the 2008 elections the term “global warming” will completely disappear from common parlance. In response to us right wing nutters who refuse to swallow the pablum we’re constantly being fed, Al Gore and crew will soon be painting the ominous picture of “global change”.

No problem. Those of us who are either scientists or happen to be interested in the actual science of “global warming” or “global climate change” or “global change” need merely begin referring to it as “global progress”.

Progress is always good, ergo global progress is unquestionably to be desired and the unthinking, unwashed, insufficiently scientific masses will speedily fall in line with us and against Al Gore and the “more government is always the answer” crowd.

The brilliance of this solution can be seen in the fact that no one, through out the entire history of “progress”, has ever stopped to ask just what they were progressing towards.

Naturally, we shall have to refer to the former global warming advocates as “Global Progress Deniers”.

Michael Rubin writes with forked pen at National Socialist Review:

What is most amazing is that the State Department has downplayed Turks’ concern about the Islamist agenda. If there was any truth to Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried comparison of the AKP to a European Christian Democratic Party, Turks would not be rallying for democracy and secularism. Perhaps it is time for some introspection in Foggy Bottom and at the U.S. embassy in Ankara.

Rubin is lying as shamelessly as Fried. Those Turks are not rallying for democracy and secularism, they are rallying FOR secularism and AGAINST democracy. No amount of spin and language abuse will change that simple fact.

Nor does it escape my attention that those who support Turkish secularism, both inside and outside Turkey, are perfectly content to rely on the Turkish Armed Forces installing a secular military regime by overthrowing the legitimate, democratically-elected government… in the name of democracy and secularism, of course.

Democracy is a complete sham. This is demonstrated every time that a popular Islamic government is elected or a European nation votes against the Eurofascists’ latest power grab; in the rare circumstances that a popular vote can change anything of real significance, it is either not permitted or the results are overturned by a devil’s brew of force and legal farce.

If it can be proved. If course, it won’t prevent the FDA from banning vitamins and suppliments:

For decades, researchers have puzzled over why rich northern countries have cancer rates many times higher than those in developing countries — and many have laid the blame on dangerous pollutants spewed out by industry.

But research into vitamin D is suggesting both a plausible answer to this medical puzzle and a heretical notion: that cancers and other disorders in rich countries aren’t caused mainly by pollutants but by a vitamin deficiency known to be less acute or even non-existent in poor nations.

Wait a minute… this doesn’t mean I have to go into the Big Room, does it? The one with the bright light?

The Washington Post puts a new spin on professional women:

[Brian] Ross [of ABC] said the list includes the names of some “very prominent people,” as well as a number of women with “important and serious jobs” who had worked as escorts for the firm.

As ABC spins out this little game of “Ho Ho Ho, Who’s the Pro?” I think it’s interesting to note that these were apparently $300 girls. So according to the Sexual Value of a Woman formula, wherein SV=(P*(E/60)*(N*12), these women were worth around $8,125 apiece on an annual basis.

That’s six times more than the average woman, but it’s not enough to live on, especially in Washington DC. So they’d be expected to have jobs, and in Washington, all Federal jobs are considered to be “important and serious”.

Hillary drops the Rodham… for now:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has dropped the use of her maiden name “Rodham” in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton identifies herself as “Hillary Clinton” in her campaign press releases and on her campaign website. The lone mention of her maiden name is in a campaign biography that says “Hillary’s father, Hugh Rodham, was the son of a factory worker from Scranton.”

She continues to use “Hillary Rodham Clinton” in her New York-focused press releases and in the Senate.

And as soon as she’s elected, the Lizard Queen will bring back the Rodham and drop the Clinton. And then she’ll celebrate by eating 13 live kittens and shedding her skin.

Now I’m just waiting for her to shock the media establishment by taking a firm position against comprehensive immigration reform and endorsing immigration restrictions.