Don't know if this has been posted before, but I think it bears repeating if it has.

GUEST OPINION

HOW WE LOST THE CULTURE WARS

By B.K. Eakman

Paul Weyrich, Cal Thomas, and Ed Dobson recently announced that the culture wars are lost, that most people don't defend, or even necessarily believe in, the values that characterized the Moral Majority and the Reagan revolution. They say social conservatives have failed politically since virtually none of their agenda items have seen the light of day in seven years.

Indisputably, the polls surrounding the Clinton scandals reveal a vastly different public reaction from parallel events under former administrations. Recall the outrage at Richard Nixon's enemies list; the knee-jerk indignation during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings. One can only imagine the howls if, say, North Korea had conducted a money-laundering operation to underwrite the Reagan or Bush campaigns. Even the recent atrocity in Littleton, Colo., attests to an acceptance of behavior that would have incensed us 20 years ago.

Why did we lose?

We lost because we failed to apply the strategic lessons of warfare to the attack on our culture. We lost because we gave away the psychological environment. We spent 30 years playing by our opponents' rules of engagement instead of forcing them to play by ours. During that time, we imagined that all we had to do was be right, present our views logically, and provide reams of documentation. We were under attack, whereas we thought we were merely under disagreement. We said we just needed to understand each other. The truth was, our adversaries understood us better than we knew.

We started off by violating the most basic principle of warfare, iterated as long ago as 550 B.C., by (ironically enough) a Chinese philosopher named Sun Tzu in "The Art of War":

"Those skilled in war bring the opponent to the field of battle. They do not allow themselves to be taken or drawn there," wrote the Chinese strategist. We fell all over ourselves for the privilege of debating issues on our adversary's turf. Our opponents proceeded to frame all the debates and dictate to the public what it would think about, and for how long.

We care about integrity i.e., the end doesn't always justify the means. The opposition doesn't. We anguish over aligning ourselves with those who might disagree with us on some nonrelated issue. Our adversaries work with anybody, including pornographer Larry Flynt, on an issue-by-issue basis. We worry about our families getting hurt. The counterculture doesn't care who gets hurt -- i.e. Hillary Clinton, Vince Foster -- as long as the larger agenda moves forward. We don't want our spouses maligned, our privacy invaded, and our good names dragged through the mud. Mudslinging is our adversaries' forte.

Our counterculture adversaries replaced the old-style liberals as a political force and elevated the sales pitch to an art form. They bought up every source of media they could in the 1960s and 1970s, and slapped their messages on everything that stood still. Newspapers, magazines, billboards, movies, op-eds, or grant proposals: They understood that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong.

Our counterculture adversaries learned important lessons from totalitarian regimes. Redefining terms through media repetition, isolating and labeling holdouts, provoking opponents to irrational rage -- such tactics virtually guaranteed the marginalization of any political or social faction, driving its members to a comfortable anonymity for fear of ridicule and ostracism.

People think because they aren't stepping over dead bodies in the streets that we are not at war. They don't stop to think that people are, in fact, dying physically, emotionally and spiritually in the schoolyard, via sick video games and Internet stalkers, through Prozac-style drugs that steal the will and compromise judgment. Today Americans are conditioned to view juvenile crime, illegitimacy, abortion, suicide and drug addiction as mental problems instead of moral problems. We can't tell the difference between a love affair and exploitative sex, between flirting and sexual harassment, between white lies and perjury, between a schoolboy carrying a butter knife and a 6-inch switchblade.

What Americans bought were critical changes in behavior, beliefs and world views. By applying advertising and agitation in just the right proportions, our adversaries learned they could create a mob mentality and suppress independent thinking. Technically, this is called the science of coercion. If done properly, one can fool nearly all the people all the time. Looking back, we can discern a pattern whereby unpopular policies first were legitimized, then institutionalized, before average people knew what hit them. Every societal faction was presented a different pitch: business, the intelligentsia, religious organizations and lawmakers. Counterculture leaders incorporated Karl Marx's "Theory of Alienation," Theodor Adorno's "Theory of Thought Disruption," Erich Fromm's "Authoritarian Personality" and James Rawlings Rees' experiments in mass neurosis to reorient American values, eventually generating what Messrs. Weyrich, Thomas and Dobson now see as political and moral impotence.

Today, the war against authority, parents and the American dream has taken a blatant and frightening turn, as students from Littleton to Paducah, Ky., run for cover. Like the proverbial frog that eventually meets its demise in the simmering pot, our society has moved from the innocent relaxing of school dress codes and removal of "Yes, Maam's" to police roaming school hallways and pornographic, sado-masochistic Web sites. We cocoon behind gated communities, install remote locks in our cars, and when our kids go to school dressed like something out of "Nightmare on Elm Street," we just shut up.

How did we lose? We lost by basing our strategy on wishful thinking instead of on the realities of war, by allowing turf battles to split our alliances, by treating our allies like competition instead of welcoming them as friends. If we are to save our way of life in the coming century, individuals of principle will have to don the mentality of the resistance fighter. We no longer have the luxury of time for righteous indignation.

First published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- May 18, 1999 www.washtimes.com. Reprinted by permission.

B.K. Eakman is executive director of the National Education Consortium and author of a new book, "Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education" (Huntington House). Visit Beverly on the net at: http://www.BeverlyE.com/

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 01, 2000

Answers

Could it be because the conservatives devoted their energy to non-issues (issues only in their minds) such as prayer in schools, flag burning, and sex, drugs, and rock and roll?

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 01, 2000.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? You think sex and drugs are NON-ISSUES?

Did you miss the Aids epidemic? Are you unaware of the tragedies that drug abuse has brought?

I could argue the other issues as well, but even the liberals have jumped on the bandwagon of the two above. Where have YOU been?

They used to say that all kids are "doing it" so we should hand out prophylactics and teach them all about every kind of sex. They wouldn't even consider teaching abstinence...waste of time...My how times have changed. Guess what? They ARE teaching abstinence as an alternative NOW. Eventually, reason really DOES win out.

I don't think I need even bother to educate you on drugs...Nancy Reagan said it best, "Just say NO."

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 01, 2000.

Alice -- you make my point. YOU HAVE LOST. "God'll getcha" doesn't work anymore. You moralists have had control for centuries. If your answers were so great, how did your opposition's point of view (such as you can describe it), come to hold such sway?

Granted there has been sexual and drug "tragedies". Some people are mentally resistant to abusing drugs, some are immunologically resistant to AIDS. Many are not. Stupidity and tragedy is no excuse for binding everyone. Remember, many people cannot handle liquor (alchol). Prohibition was tried and didn't work -- but idiots like you learn nothing from history.

Tell me, are you opposed to pre-marital sex, prostitution, birth control, abortion? Do you favor throwing people in jail for using and selling marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.? If you say "YES" to any of the above, you are a moral fascist, and furthermore, your breast-beating is increasingly IRRELEVANT.

Can you come up with good RATIONAL reasons (not "God said so") that will cap a teenager's raging hormones, for example? And don't give the bugaboo of disease and pregnancy. Disease can be prevented and usually cured (those cases that can't -- c'est la vie). Pregnancy can definitely be cured (but of course you religious wackos with your quaint ideas of what is a viable human life sort of gets in the way of that, doesn't it?).

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 01, 2000.

Alice,

Amen! Just because a person is able to commit an action doesn't make it right. We have become the generation of "instant gratification" - perhaps the social values (morals) are no longer being taught (or at least not being shown/endorsed by major media)as widespread as they used to. Too many of us are in the forest, but can't see the trees.

Perhaps we are living in the "Twilight of the American Empire"?

Hint: Ignore A. He's pretty hostile when it comes to God and religion. Something happened to him when he was younger where that whenever a subject (like this one) ties to the church/God, he lashes out at anyone that posts to the subject.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), March 01, 2000.

"A" I am sorry that you are so very angry. My subsequent post did not mention God at all. Though I have posted my feelings in this regard for all to see and it is no secret that I am a Christian and will make no apologies for it, I did not use God to "prove" my point. I did not need to. Even atheists support the position that sex and drugs are "hot" topics. You need not believe in God to understand that.

I am sorry that this has touched you so deeply that you cannot reason without throwing invectives helter skelter.

I know of noone who is impervious to the aids virus...some have ameliorated or eliminated (for the moment) the symptoms with the aid of modern medicine. For which I am eternally thankful. But there is no vaccine or prevention short of abstinence or "safe" sex of which I am aware. So it remains a "hot" topic.

I agree with Deb in that we need to start taking personal responsibility for our actions. Hence I am glad that abstinence has been added to the list of preventive measures taught. You do not have to be a Christian to support such a philosophy. Indeed, I know of many atheists who support it. Where did you read God into it? It was certainly fought on that basis originally by far left thinking liberals, but has even been supported by them in recent years as they saw that it was not a religious stance merely, but also a common sense stance.

Drug use is rampant not only in the U.S., but also all over the world. Without exception, it is frowned upon. In many places you will be executed on the spot (e.g. China). Many countries have tried various means to alleviate it (e.g. Sweden and their "laissez-faire" approach....it was a dismal failure and actually increased drug usage...their policy is under revision as their policy failed)...we continue to search for answers because what we have tried and are trying is not working. Do you read God into that as well?

I could of course use God in both arguments, but I really don't need to. Please remove your blinders and step into the real world. Not everything supported by Christians is a bad thing. We live in the same world and battle the same problems. Please stop hating long enough to listen.

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 01, 2000.

The church changed in the early part of this century. The result is that today not even true Christians can always count on getting correct counsel and teaching from the church. It varies. A century of church apostasy has given us a depraved and self-indulgent society. Few know the difference between right and wrong anymore, even Christians, and few care. Most people spend most of their lives doing everything they can to avoid the evidence of the truth. Never before has that been so easy to do as it is today. I am no fan of Billy Graham but even he said that "if God does not judge America He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

-- A (A@AisA.com), you said,

"Tell me, are you opposed to pre-marital sex, prostitution, birth control, abortion? Do you favor throwing people in jail for using and selling marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.? If you say "YES" to any of the above, you are a moral fascist, and furthermore, your breast-beating is increasingly IRRELEVANT."

Yes, I do. not because I'm a "moral fascist", but because avoiding promiscuous intercourse and IV drugs will drop my children's chance of dying of AIDS to effectively zero, and avoiding that lifestyle will greatly improve their chance of finishing school (and hopefully college) and making something of themselves. Why would you consider protecting your children irrelavent? I have heard of coke heads letting their children starve to death so they could take care of their own "needs", perhaps YOUR opinion is based on your lifestyle.

You also said,

"Can you come up with good RATIONAL reasons (not "God said so") that will cap a teenager's raging hormones, for example? And don't give the bugaboo of disease and pregnancy. Disease can be prevented and usually cured (those cases that can't -- c'est la vie). Pregnancy can definitely be cured (but of course you religious wackos with your quaint ideas of what is a viable human life sort of gets in the way of that, doesn't it?)."

Bugaboo of disease and pregnancy? Are you "high" right now? And saying "Disease can be prevented and usually cured (those cases that can't -- c'est la vie)." pretty much sums up your position to me. It seems you don't really care about the effects of your actions on others so long as you can do what you want. Selfishness is the domain of 2 year olds, not responsible behavior from adults.

Armed, like a responsible citizen should be,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 01, 2000.

China is a corporation that manufactures, grows and distributes drugs worldwide. They only execute those who don't play ball with the big boys, same as usually only the unconnected with the higher echelon of american big business or government get prosecuted and incarcerated here. Holland is a good example of ending prohibition, They have lower crime rates and lower addiction than any other european country or the US. We are now the worlds largest police state. Increasing prison size isn't the answer. It is well and fine to set a good moral example for your children and community, that is well and good. But expanding the list of "crimes" wil eventually get you and yours on the list of running afoul of some other heinous government "law". We have adequate laws to deal with real crimes, the morality issue is something different. Now I tend to agree on banning abortion except for obvious medical needs of the mother, cases like that. A baby is a baby, and depriving it of life is the cruelest of crimes. but as to these other issues, you'll just have to eat reality, a certain percentage of the population will become abusive of substances, while the majority will not. The war on drugs has cost-what-hundreds of billions of dollars? and it hasn't done anything worthwhile, other than drive the price up to such astronomical levels that entire governmental agencies get corrupt, that huge banks are used to launder money, that society must bear the burden of crimes, crimes that wouldn't be commited if the free market regulated the price. Look at the creation of the Mafia, how it really caught on in a huge fashion in our history. It was entirely from alcohol prohibition, and the flaunting of the law went right to the whitehouse down to the lowliest street bum, with only the politically weak being prosecuted to any extent. sure, a very small handful of "big shots" were prosecuted, but reality was that untold millions just said heck no, I'm having a drink, so corruption became rampant. Now, with the end of that prohibition, you don't see massive crime associated with it, but you still see it with drugs, because of the profit. You have only two choices, because the third choice, what we are doing now, simply isn't working, hasn't worked, and will never work. The other two choices are an extreme police state, incardcerate and executive upwards of 20% f the population, or even more, if you will admit that alcohol is a mind altering dangerous drug. Uhh-that doesn't seem very wise. We are down to one choice then, the end of prohibition. that's it, no other choices. Massive police state, or cut the profits off, drop crime rates to about 100% of what they are now. I like the second option myself.

As to sexuality, it's the individuals responsibility, besides that, it's no one elses business. Raise your children well, encourage your other family and friends to raise your children well. Beatings with whips and verbal condemnations to hell, using fear, and force, will not work. I have no desire to live in some sort of theocracy like Iran, where people are whipped, stoned, beheaded, have their arms cut off, where women are less than human, etc. that is the sort of society you get when you attempt to overly regulate human behavior. There are "real" crimes, and there's there's thought crimes. Thought crimes have no place in a free society. If you don't want to be persecuted for your religious beliefs, if you don't want to be demonized by others, than don't do it yourself to others for "thought" crimes. You are not your brother's keeper. But you can be your brothers friend and show by example, not by having them whipped, thrown in jail, stoned, executed, persecuted, tortured, mutilated, or burnt at the stake, which was tried for several centuries. It didn't work, and was a hideous travesty of God's Love. Real crime-thought crime. Two different things, they need to be separated. If you fail to do that, you will eventually be yourself a victim of thought crime, it is inevitable. You sow what your reap. Change is not immediate, but it can be accomplished by learning from the past and th9inking, not by forgetting the past and making the same mistakes every generation. Yes, there will be wild swings of behavior, but yes again, the pendulum will swing to a more reasonable, polite and moral society once we stop hating, once we stop trying to make other people mirror images of what "we" think is "the one true path". There are as many views of the "one true path" as there are religious (or non religious) people. You may use force to protect yourself or family from harm, but using force to hurt others to make them comply with your personal interpretation of the "one true path" is inherently flaed, it will not work, and will only cause harm and pain. Caring, example, steadfastness, and education will show much better results than what has been the typical method, which boils down to brute force. When you have created an enemy, than that's what you have done, created an enemy. There is no dialogue any longer, the schism grows wider, and it always leads to confrontation, pain and suffering. That sounds to me more what the creature with horns wants, doesn't it? Not what the entity with angel wings wants. Real crime-thought crime. Think about it. Do you want positive change, or painful retribution and revenge?

-- freedom (orthoughtpolice@ayatollah.inquistion.torture.nolove), March 01, 2000.

Ignore the religion-hating A. He thinks people of faith are responsible for all the problems of humanity. Right A? Why don't you go back to reading your favorite book, Mein Kampf.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), March 01, 2000.

Can't everyone see that A@AisA is just winding you up, don't rise to the bait. Will the real A please stand up.

-- Sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 01, 2000.

I am not a proponent of creating new laws of morality to regulate and punish. I don't think it works.

What does?

Just what Deb and I agreed upon earlier in this thread. What is that? It is self responsibility. I cannot enforce it. I cannot regulate it. But I will not disavow it as some do and say, c'est la vie! I won't give up.

I know that many will fall by the way. Does that mean we quit? Medicine would have made little or no advances, science too if we had taken that attitude. "Man can't fly. If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings!" Heart transplants, blood transfusions, and other lifesaving tools available to doctors today would not be with the preceding attitude. How narrow your world must be to accept such a philosophy.

I merely wish more folks would take responsibility for their own actions. As to "raging hormones"...sorry, don't buy it...never had any. You are always responsible for your own actions. Don't go blaming it on raging hormones or peer pressure or society or the devil made me do it. You have choices. Make good ones and you prosper. Make bad ones and you suffer.

I can't and don't want to make laws governing this. I merely want folks to start thinking about it. Of late, it has been pc to blame everybody and anybody or anything for the ills of society. Society is made up of people. Ultimately you must blame yourself.

-- Alice (Looking@glass.com), March 01, 2000.

freedom,

I'm not saying I WANT to enforce Draconian measures in this (U.S.) country, but it seems to me that there really is a concerted effort being made by the media and to some extent the government to *advocate* irresponsible and socially destructive behavior. As I perceive their actions to be increasingly blatent in this regard, I find myself necessarily going farther afield in the other direction so as not to be continually "losing ground" (as quickly).

In an otherwise reasonable world, I'd be much happier to be live and let live for most alternative lifestyles, so long as their behaviors (such as drunk driving) don't interfere with MY pursuit of happiness.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 01, 2000.

Deb, you said:

We have become the generation of "instant gratification".

Might I say respecfully that you are dead wrong here...

INSTANT gratification is nowhere NEAR fast enough for this society today.

As I said on another thread, listen to the Billy Joel tune "No Man's Land". THAT is what we've become. There is NO "UP" from where we are. To go "up", the sheeple must WANT to do so. They do NOT ("A" is a prime example). They are gloriously happy and satisfied wallowing in that slop-pen of immorality, anger, and directionless drifting.

They wouldn't change a thing. The drugs and the booze allow them to overlook the direction their lives have taken, numbing them to the horrors of their course. They pass these values on to their children, who react in (to quote Cory Hamasaki) "glorious and unexpected ways." Then they thrash in their slop-pens for a few minutes, demanding that "somebody DO something" (as long as THEY can keep doing NOTHING).

The government, ever-greedy to fill a vaccum, be it moral or of leadership, responds my mandating "greatest common denominator" laws (sort of like how TeeVee shows are thought up), forcing more decisions out of the hands of sheeple/parents and into their own, "for the public good".

The sheeple (or pigs, if you prefer) in their slop-pens see that this is good, and settle in with a case of Bud Light or bottle of Jack Daniels, for another night of stupor and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" The kids take all this in, and the cycle continues.

Why does anyone even ASK "why"? We KNOW why. ALL OF US. Some just don't want to admit it, even to themselves. Reality is just too painful. Time for more booze...

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), March 01, 2000.

Well said Dennis. BTW, 'A' is short for asshole.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), March 01, 2000.

I've always been a big believer in free thinking, freedom of action, of self-determination, and rational morality. We can learn from the lessons of the Bible and traditional morality, too, without having to embrace every tenet of organized religion and knee-jerk judgementalism. I also agree that personal responsibility is the cornerstone of civilization.

Before I was married, I really resented mostly married people passing judgement on singles who chose to have sex. Although by chance I never had premarital sex, I did not see an inherent evil in it.

Now that I'm married, it's somehow easier to believe that maybe, yes, it is ideal to wait for marriage. My spouse and I both did, although I never really intended to wait that long! But still, I think it's OK (if not ideal) for teenagers to have consenting sexual relations.

But now that I'm a new parent, I'm not as liberal in my opinions. I'm getting a little grayer, a little more conservative. I worry about the emotional consequences that sex can have on young people who aren't being given the tools to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their actions. I'm 20 years past my teenage years, so it's easy to forget how intense the desire could be at the time.

But do married parents have the right to influence the behavior of everyone? Does being a parent, which rightly requires positive influence on the behavior of one's children, grant some special status to determine and enforce what is right and good for all people?

Of course not. But it is a pretty special thing to take responsibility, and extend it to a lifelong partnership with your spouse, and take on the laudable burden and joy of raising one or more children. You would think parents should indeed have "more of a say" on things than others who are really in this world only for themselves, whether due to circumstance or choice.

Drugs and sex are both similar issues. Those who have no trouble abstaining find it easy to negatively judge those who can't or won't. Those who have learned from negative experience are prejudical towards those who may be having a more or less positive experience. But the point is that one's experience is one's own, and must be lived to be learned.

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

--AAAA Your points are actually somewhat true. Morality can not be legislated. I do not think you should be put in jail for being immoral. You should be put in jail if you are harming someone else but not for harming yourself.

Morals cannot be dictated. Morals can only be found in the soul. How can man (a sinner) dictate what the soul should be?

Man is not God.

I can understand your thinking that immorality is ok because you have not found God. No MAN is capable of ever changing your thinking.

The problem with our schools today are they are trying to teach self esteem without morals. How can one learn to truly like ones self without trying to strive to be a better person? (ie: morals) They can only become empty and confused and searching for more earthly pleasures to fulfill them. (ie: immorality)

Peace is for tyrants. When the effort for a more moralistic society stops only tyrants will be able to control the masses.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), March 01, 2000.

Yeah,A. It's called self restraint, something obviously not well understood.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 01, 2000.

It's not about morals or ethics. IT'S ABOUT MONEY. When lack of integrity loses money for the corporations, integrity will be restored. It's not about individuals, anymore, as Arthur Miller said in his play about Hitler.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

Mara I have to disagree with you that it is not about morals but in the same sense agree with you that it is about money.

When money represents greed and power and not just an exchange for goods or services money then becomes immoral.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), March 01, 2000.

Will Continue (ranting about his/her view of morality and religionas the one and only way) and other religous cranks -- freedom (orthought police) has said it very well, overall. Read it again -- maybe several times might be required for the most zealous of you to understand.

-- A (A@AisA.com), March 01, 2000.

"Tell me, are you opposed to pre-marital sex, prostitution, birth control, abortion? Do you favor throwing people in jail for using and selling marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.? If you say "YES" to any of the above, you are a moral fascist, and furthermore, your breast- beating is increasingly IRRELEVANT"

Although I believe that each of the things you mention is either immoral or stupid, I also believe it is up to the individuals involved to decide for themselves what to do.

What frosts my pumpkin is that _most_ of the liberal do-gooders tell the individuals to go ahead and behave however they want to, THEN THEY MAKE ME PAY TO CLEAN UP THE MESS. That makes me a little bit more than somewhat angry.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), March 01, 2000.

Alice, that was an excellent article. It did not promote moral fascism. It promoted responsible action, and teaching that to our offspring, if anything.

It is interesting to note that there are whole clubs of teenagers around the US (I forget the name they call themselves) devoted to abstinence before marriage and to not drinking or doing drugs. They are not sponsored by any Christian group, nor are they all Christian. This is a movement of and by youth, as the pendulum is swinging and they realize the harm that things done prematurely, or at all, can cause. They are very zealous in bringing this realization to their peers. I've seen them interviewed and studied on television, and it was very stirring.

Here is an article from today's Drudge Report:

Clever teenagers wait longer for first kiss By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

Smart teens don't have sex (or kiss much either) [Mar '00] - Journal of Adolescent Health Journal of Adolescent Health Teenage pregnancy fact sheet - New York Online Access to Health [NOAH] BRIGHT teenagers delay their first kiss and lose their virginity later than adolescents of average intelligence, a report claimed yesterday. Many put off any kind of minor sexual activity, including holding hands, according to the study led by Dr Carolyn Halpern of the University of North Carolina. Before the study, her team thought teenagers on the high end of the IQ scale would be least likely to have sex and those on the low end would be most likely.

The team "thought teens of lower intelligence might be more vulnerable to being taken advantage of or less likely to consider possible negative consequences of having sex", said Dr Halpern. But she was surprised to find that the least intelligent teenagers also appeared to delay sexual contact. She said parents or other guardians might shield them, especially girl, from sexual liaisons longer than others. Although the team could not determine exactly why, their analysis - which takes into account age, physical maturity, economic status and other factors - suggested that motivations were different for lower and higher-intelligence teenagers.

Overall, an adolescent of average intelligence was up to five times more likely to have had sex compared with teenagers with higher IQs, depending on which age and sex group was considered, said Dr Halpern, assistant professor of maternal and child health. She said: "The association between intelligence and refraining from sexual inyercourse was stronger for girls than for boys and stronger for older teens." Dr Halpern was surprised that the relationship between intelligence and postponing sex existed even with kissing or light petting, said the report in the Journal of Adolescent Health. It is commonly assumed the link between good exam results and sexual postponement is due to the desire of adolescents to safeguard goals, like going to university. But Dr Halpern said: "Our results suggest that this is not the whole story. It is hard to believe that teens avoid kissing because they see it as the start of a slippery slope to possible pregnancy."

The team analysed information from two samples. One included data on about 12,000 adolescents and the second detailed levels of sexual contact among 100 boys and 200 girls.

3 September 1999: [UK News] Boyfriend of pregnant 12-year-old blames sex lessons 25 March 1999: [UK News] Girls of 10 seek helpline's advice about pregnancy 22 October 1998: [UK News] Teenage girls are more sexually active than boys 20 December 1996: [UK News] Teen magazine surveys 'put pressure on girls to have sex'

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

I wish people would stop using this oxy-moron phrase, "Morality can not be legislated." I KNOW everyone is capable of thinking more clearly than that! Think about it folks... All law is legislated morality. Law is about right and wrong and consequences. What a society adopts for their law is based on the prevailing moral beliefs of that society. Another way of saying it is that all law is someone's legislated morality.

Think it over.

-- Phil (patrickhenry7@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

Alice,

Thanks for the great post! I certainly do agree, personal responsibility for one's actions is absolutely necessary in our society, if we expect to survive with our social fabric intact.

I think that some of the greatest influences on today's malaise are:

1. Lack of strong ties to one's cultural heritage. From what I've seen, persons without strong familial or cultural heritage ties tend to have strong needs, trying to fill a void in their lives, drifting from one culture to another, trying to fit in. I sometimes wonder if this a by-product of normal democracy - creating a 'cultural melting pot' can be inherently dangerous if emphasis is placed on the wrong values, just to make a compromise.

This is not to say that pride in one's heritage should overrule respect for others in society - far from it. The key is a balance of self-respect and respect for others - neither should overrule the other.

2. Greed It seems that the almight profit has been taken on as the most important aspect of life. No longer is contentment with life, a good home and car (not necessarily the most expensive) enough. Instead of being happy with a decent profit, every last dime must be squeezed from a sale, generating distrust, deception and lack of co-operation.

Many businesses have changed their procedures so they can generate the greatest monetary gain for their shareholders - no matter what the cost to their employees, and the effect it has on our society. Working hours now can be 24/7 365 days a year, leaving little time for families to join together, for parents and extended family to take care of their children. Consider the decline in the purchasing power of the American dollar - it is no longer easily possible for the American Middle Class to have one breadwinner in the family, which might have helped to alleviate some of the problems with raising and educating younger generations.

The greed in Corporate America has fundamentally changed the American dream: No longer to thrive, but just to survive.

I just hope that we're not to late to stem the tide of moral indifference and NIMBY-ism. I really hope we're not too late.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), March 01, 2000.

"But the point is that one's experience is one's own, and must be lived to be learned."

"-- Ceemeister"

Cee,

Here's a proverb for you: "A fool is one who cannot learn from another's experiences."

We have eyes, ears and a brain for a reason - people just need to use them more.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), March 01, 2000.

Can't remember who said it, possibly Robert Heinlein ---my memory of it goes something like this:"you might as well learn from other's mistakes, you can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself."

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 01, 2000.

Elaine -

You may be thinking of SMART Moves, which is sponsored by the Boy's and Girls Clubs of America.

From the program description:

The SMART Moves (Skills Mastery and Resistance Training) prevention/education program addresses the problems of drug and alcohol use and premature sexual activity. Based on proven techniques, the program uses a team approach involving Club staff, peer leaders, parents and community representatives. More than simply emphasizing a Say No message, the program teaches young people ages 6-15 how to say no by involving them in discussion and role-playing, practicing resistance and refusal skills, developing assertiveness, strengthening decision-making skills and analyzing media and peer influence. The ultimate goal: to promote abstinence from substance abuse and adolescent sexual involvement through the practice of responsible behavior...

There is also the "True Love Waits" movement, but it's more faith-based. No matter what the foundation, current research shows that programs like these are proving very effective in helping teens learn to make wiser life choices.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), March 01, 2000.

Phil,

Actually, there are, in the main, two kinds of morality - intrapersonal and interpersonal.

Intrapersonal morality is largely defined as those moral choices a person makes that, for the most part, affect only himself, e.g., religious beliefs, safe-practice sexual preferences, reasonable recreational drug use, terminal/chronic disease euthanasia, personal privacy, and many others.

Interpersonal morality deals with the moral choices between and among people that largely affect more than the self, e.g., business practices and contracts, marriage, property rights, personal safety, local & national security, etc.

The morality of the latter, in many cases, can and often should be legislated, mainly to assure that the rights, and therefore the peace, among the various parties are maintained. The case for legislation in the former is a far grayer area. I would like to believe that people should be left to make intrapersonal moral choices with minimal constraints, especially in those areas where the outcomes are truly personal and willingly and fully assumed by the chooser.

The hitches are twofold:

1) All consequences flowing from intrapersonal moral choices, and the full cost of such, should be borne by the chooser alone.

2) Not all consequences of seemingly purely intrapersonal choice are truly personal, e.g., some "perceived" intrapersonal choices yield the deprived children of drug addicts, fatherless homes, the spread of venereal disease and aids, etc.

A further complication is that the government, in its infinite wisdom, has taken it upon itself role as chief enabler of unwise intrapersonal choices by attempting (and that's all it is, an attempt) to reduce or eliminate the negative feedback of painful consequences by providing direct monetary compensation and other supports for making incorrect choices. And the reality of this compensation is not lost on the rest of the population, leading to an explosion of incorrect moral choices and cementing the government's role in reinforcing such choices.

The problem, essentially, is that religions, the media, and government, among others, lump all "moral choices" together, failing to make the gross and fine distinctions that separate them, and doing so for different reasons. Most religions consist of a hoary ideology that must be maintained, lest the flock lose their moral focus and the religion itself loses its control. The media simply sucks up to whatever the transnational corporations and their lackeys, the government, want. The government, as a tool of the transnational corporation, has the big stick to enforce the dictates of the transnational corporations with the latter not having to bother dirtying its hands. The functionaries within government also thrive on the power afforded them, powers that often far overreach the government's legitimate role and authority: the broad powers of telling people what to do, when to do it, to whom, and how often, and arresting and incarcerating any who do not comply.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), March 01, 2000.

Nathan

Thank you for clearing that up. The morality I am speaking of that cannot be legislated is of the heart and soul of a person. Sometimes trying to be short and concise can lose some clarity.

I definately feel the place for government is to remove those in society that would purposely do harm to others.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), March 01, 2000.

Lucy,

I very much agree, but to be logically consistent, the government would also have to remove large parts of itself.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), March 01, 2000.

Frank-I agree, and thanks for that example. Yes, a drunk driver can hurt someone, he has screwed up, he shouold be stopped even bewfore driving. Unfortunately, our society waits until after the crime is commited, by allowing drunks to be served. Now the reason they do that is for revenue to the state, and to get more people into the criminal justice system. To be free, you not only have "license" but you have responsibility as well. I am for both. To keep with your example, freedom to drink, but that freedom ends when you turn the key and pull out of the parking lot at the bar. Now it's a real crime. same with drugs. stay home, pick nose, watch the tube, blow a joint. No harm nor foul other than wasting your own brain cells. Leave your home, go out, smoke crack, drive crazy, get in fights or other crime, well, you've screwed up. I think with those simple examples we can agree on the differentation between thought crimes and real crimes. Society shouldn't have to pay for screwups, or pay for peoples children who have no business having children, etc. it's tough kitty, but unless we want a complete police state, there will be suffering by some people. well, too bad, that's life. We have the "right" to excel, and the "right" to fail, unhindered by governmental thought crime accusations. How many cops get roaring drunk sometimes? they've completely altered their consciousness, become menaces during that time frame. but the same cops go kick in someone's door and "accidentaly" shoot the pot smokers for 'resisting arrest". This is nuts, it won't ever work. the state I'm in has a lottery, they push it by commercials, tv ads, etc, but just try and open a private casino! Hoo boy, the thought police would be there in a second arresting you, and stealing your property. it's the societal hypocrisy that makes younger people think that everything their told by adults is a LIE. they link reefer with crack, it's all lumped under "narcotics", and then if they or someone they know smokes a joint, and they see they don't immediately turn into raging addicts, then they think the other scarey drug lectures are all hooey, that it's a lie. Same with sex, same with about anything. Tell a kid murder is wrong, but then get him or her to join the videogame army and go someplace they never heard of, make them kill people who are no threat to the US, tell them that murder by order is cool, then you get more of "what's with this?". Little lies and exceptions lead to bigger lies and acceptance, both of personal lying, and of not trusting others, because you quickly learn that most people lie about things. You learn to play the odds that way, and poof-a-rama, we have a society like we have now. Institutionalized hypocrisy.

Children need CONSISTENCY from adults, not exceptions to the rule everyday.

And yes, the proactive hollywood "anything goes" is a terrible thing to show kids, but it's only reinforced by what they see around them in real life. Kids are kids, but they aren't stupid. They see the king lying, and NOTHING HAPPENS TO HIM. What kind of message is that?

We all share in the guilt and blame, best we can do is change those little pieces we have control over, set positive examples based on love and logic, not threats and violence. Doesn't matter what religion it is then, that's just plain common sense. If it takes a religious doctrine to accomplish this, than fine, that's great for anyone who chooses that flavor. Got no problem with that. I contend it's possible many ways, and the names don't matter, but that's just personal choice on my part.

-- freedom (part@deux.philosophy), March 01, 2000.

I can't disagree with you on that point Nathan.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), March 01, 2000.

...Kids are kids, but they aren't stupid. They see the king lying, and NOTHING HAPPENS TO HIM. What kind of message is that?

That the world is full of flawed people and systems, and that it is not fair and never will be. That people can do great harm and still prosper, if only for a time. That Mr. Clinton may have avoided impeachment, but he will forever be remembered as someone placed in a position of trust who betrayed it completely.

We've had some good talks in our family about the situation. Fortunately, Mr. Clinton is not a king, and we'll be very glad when he is gone from the White House.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), March 01, 2000.

You LOST the culture war becaus eyour mayonaise and wonder bread white- bread have no CREDIBILITY with the spicy salsa folks her in the city. Just stay in your suburbs and everything will be okay. You dont like our spiciness & your blandness makes us sick too.

-- INever (inevercheckmy@onebox.com), March 02, 2000.

I read this article when it came out. It's focus was the failed impeachment of Clinton. It was silly then and it is silly now. The conservative authors lump everyone they disagree with together as their opponent, claim all virtue for their side and all evil for the alleged united opponent, and claim they lost because they were too good.

Actually, they failed to impeach Clinton because the American people have too much common sense. It didn't help that the prime warriors on the side of the religious right had a few sexual skeletons in their own closets. (That's where you get that eliptical reference to privacy.)

As for abstinence - there is a big campaign to suck up money that should be used for sex education or other social services and give it to programs staffed by the religious right. Unfortunately for them, the record of the abstinence programs is not very good.

-- kermit (colourmegreen@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.

The problem, essentially, is that religions, the media, and government, among others, lump all "moral choices" together, failing to make the gross and fine distinctions that separate them, and doing so for different reasons. Most religions consist of a hoary ideology that must be maintained, lest the flock lose their moral focus and the religion itself loses its control. The media simply sucks up to whatever the transnational corporations and their lackeys, the government, want. The government, as a tool of the transnational corporation, has the big stick to enforce the dictates of the transnational corporations with the latter not having to bother dirtying its hands. The functionaries within government also thrive on the power afforded them, powers that often far overreach the government's legitimate role and authority: the broad powers of telling people what to do, when to do it, to whom, and how often, and arresting and incarcerating any who do not comply.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), March 01, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- Phil (patrickhenry7@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.

The problem, essentially, is that religions, the media, and government, among others, lump all "moral choices" together, failing to make the gross and fine distinctions that separate them, and doing so for different reasons. Most religions consist of a hoary ideology that must be maintained, lest the flock lose their moral focus and the religion itself loses its control. The media simply sucks up to whatever the transnational corporations and their lackeys, the government, want. The government, as a tool of the transnational corporation, has the big stick to enforce the dictates of the transnational corporations with the latter not having to bother dirtying its hands. The functionaries within government also thrive on the power afforded them, powers that often far overreach the government's legitimate role and authority: the broad powers of telling people what to do, when to do it, to whom, and how often, and arresting and incarcerating any who do not comply.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), March 01, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Sorry for posting this without finishing it... clumsy fingers and a sensitive enter key!

To reply: Such a totalitarianism was/is true under, for example, the Soviet communist regime or the German Nazi state. In this country, thanks to democracy, the people have a large part of the blame for the moral bases that is used to craft legislation. Simply put, given what you say, I'd say the wrong system of morality is being used as the basis of our laws. Phil

-- Phil (patrickhenry7@hotmail.com), March 02, 2000.