Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Gasping Gonads

Sometimes I fear Americans don’t have what it takes anymore, especially men in blue states like Massachusetts. But it didn’t use to be like that. They’ve gotten soft after years of feeling guilty about having so much in a world where so many have so little. Such thinking presumes the amount of wealth on earth is fixed, and because you have a lot, someone else is going without. Americans who think this way don’t believe that we built what we have by hard work and we deserve it, or that other parts of the world would do better to emulate us rather than resent us because they could do it too.

We used to think American culture was special. As children, we cheered watching Superman fight for “truth, justice, and the American Way.” We knew he wasn’t real, but we believed the American Way was pretty terrific, that it worked better than what other countries had, and that our strength, our inventiveness and our prosperity were the results. We invented the airplane, the light bulb, the television, and countless other things the whole world enjoys. Heck, we put a man on the moon.

In the 20th century, America became the greatest power on earth, but we didn’t create an empire. After trying to stay out of World War I, we tipped the balance against Germans and Turks. Though allies like England and France divided the spoils and added to their empires, we didn’t.

When Europe got into a mess again and Japan was taking over Asia, who bailed out the world? We did. Again, we tried for years to stay out of it, but we were attacked. So, we pulverized our enemies, then demanded nothing less than unconditional surrender. That was the American Way back then. When the war ended, we had our military deployed everywhere and nearly every other country was crippled. Our infrastructure was intact and we had sole possession of nuclear weaponry, yet we still didn’t create an empire. What did we do instead? We established and reestablished democracies in countries which had been our enemies and helped them rebuild. There’s no precedent for such unselfishness by such a powerful nation in all of recorded history.

In spite of this, many in the generation born after World War II condemn our country’s legacy. They run our universities now and instead of celebrating our proud history, they teach instead that our leaders have been selfish white men who’ve done little but oppress women, minorities, homosexuals and third-world countries everywhere. They insist that all cultures are equal, men and women are the same, there’s no such thing as absolute truth, right and wrong are relative, and the American Way is hated around the world. ROTC programs and military recruiters are banned from campuses. There are more colleges per square mile in the Boston area than anyplace on earth, so these attitudes are quite prevalent in Massachusetts.

Perhaps worst of all, they’ve permeated primary and secondary schools with their views. They try to raise our boys to believe that there’s no difference between them and little girls. If two boys fight, both are punished, even if one is a bully and the other is defending himself. They teach that fighting is always bad, even after you’re attacked. Parents of boys who don’t want to behave like the girls are encouraged to feed their sons prescription drugs. If the boys still manage to grow into men who still resist such “progressive” thinking, they’re forced to undergo “sensitivity training,” especially in such blue-state strongholds as Massachusetts, New York and San Francisco.

Now we’ve discovered that men in Massachusetts are losing testosterone. According to a recent study of 1700 Boston-area men in the January, 2007 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and reported by Reuters, testosterone levels have dropped about one percent a year since the 1980s. “It’s likely that some sort of environmental exposure is responsible for the testosterone decline,” said Dr. Thomas Travison of the New England Research Institutes.

Environmental exposure indeed. What kind of environment have the “progressives” created down there in Massachusetts? What should we expect from a place where they don’t want to keep score at soccer games, where dodge ball and tag are banned from elementary schools, and homosexual “marriage” is invented? Looks like I got out just in time. Boys will be boys if they’re allowed to be. Raise them an environment that tries to turn them into girls and this is what you get. I’m guessing the “Boston-area men” were from Cambridge.

The article went on: “‘[Testosterone in] The entire population is shifting somewhat downward we think,’ Travison told Reuters Health. ‘We’re counting on other studies to confirm this.’” I have some suggestions, Dr. Travison. Do a red-state study in the middle of the United States away from the coasts. There you’ll find testosterone at rates you’d expect in men who haven’t been sissified. Then do another study in the San Francisco area. I suspect you’ll discover that testosterone there has declined to barely measurable levels. Lastly, compare your results with the new electoral map after Tuesday’s election and see if any correllations emerge.

If our new blue-state Congress forces a pullout from Iraq and the terrorists gain strength, will we still have what it takes to defeat our enemies? Time was we did. Now, I’m not sure.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

"This analysis deals with men who were born between 1915 and 1945, but our baseline data were not obtained until the late 1980s, when the elder subjects were about 70 years old, and the youngest about 45," Travison said.

http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=5598245

Tom McLaughlin said...

"While a man's testosterone level will fall steadily as he ages, the researchers observed a speedier decline in average testosterone levels than would have been expected with aging alone." Reuters 10-31-06

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's the confectionary system, not the education system:
http://tinyurl.com/yjv4st

Tom McLaughlin said...

That's it. No more licorice for me.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Excellent posting..brings me back to the premise of Dr Shelby Steele's book, White Guilt and how a lot of what you have written about ties in with Dr Steele's observations.

My fear is, all our media, academia and political leadership is propagating crap whereas people are not able to evaluate/judge these decision makers, without the CONTEXT of history. When you do not have that context to evaluate what is dished out to you, you will tend to consume relentlessly. That is a tragedy that we ought to do without.

It also means it is very easy to scare people (a la Missouri's DNC ads on stem cell research) or attract their polictical patronage by appealing to 'populist' concerns -- raising minimum wage, 'negotiating' drug prices, withdrawing tax credits on big oil, questioning our trading relationship with China (as a protectionist measure), step out of Iraq without completing the job, etc. If this nation gets away from the Ronald Reagan model and dives back into the dark era of Jimmy Carter, it is a most regressive step, compounded by the ogre of Islamic terror that is spread like a disease worldwide.

Sriraj

Anonymous said...

It was interesting to read Tom McLaughlin’s latest editorial, ‘Testosterone and the American way.” He suggests that we Americans are softening and sissifying our boys/men, in fact lowering testosterone levels. He supports this claim with some poignant facts, many of which I agree with.
What really disturbs me is that in the very same article he says, “other parts of the world would do better to emulate us rather than resent us because they could do it too.” Wait a minute, with lower testosterone levels in other parts of the world, maybe there would be less unnecessary violence....hey, maybe this is not so disturbing after all!
Also, in the opening paragraph of his column, Tom conveys a belief that wealth has no limits. What he does not seem to realize is that increasing wealth requires an increased use of natural resources. To sustain our way of life as one of the ‘wealthiest’ nations on Earth we use about 20% of the planets resources. For 5% of the total population to use 20% of the resources....well, do the math. If other countries “emulate us rather than resent us,” we will be needing more planets to supply the necessary resources. Where does Tom suggest we find these additional planets?

Robert Dow

Anonymous said...

Robert,

First of all, for other nations to emulate the US, it is not going to happen in a snap..it takes decades (and one would add, centuries) to reach that point. At the rate at which research in the industrialized world is progressing, we are reaching a point in which we can remain wealthy and consume resources effectively -- case in point, being, our efforts to get away from fossil fuels -- by the time other countries reach levels of wealth similar to the US (also, remember,the US would've gotten much more welathier, by then) we would've gotten away from consuming fossil fuels. These are going to be this century's challenges. I still believe that science will allow us to super-efficiently 'consume' i.e. overall wealth in the world will increase with much lesser per capita consumption, than what we have today.

Sriraj

Tom McLaughlin said...

Robert,

If lowering testosterone resulted in all the world populated with "smiling happy people holding hands," that would be fine for some. Europe, Canada and Japan are not reproducing at even replacement levels and that may be a side effect of lowered testosterone as well. That's fine for people who worry as you do about "limited resources" but it has its down side: Muslims are reproducing like rabbits and replacing native Europeans. Their testosterone levels are, I'm guessing, right up there. The result is that the Spanish, French, Dutch and Swedes are putting their Euro tales between their legs and letting Muslims run over them. Throw Canada in the mix as well. This doesn't bode well for civilization. I'd worry more about that than diminishing rainforests in Brazil.

Sissified Americans have elected a Democrat majority in Congress which is making plans to withdraw from Iraq. France is pleased. Al Qaeda is pleased and so are the Iranian mullahs. Maybe Democrats can get measured for their kaffiyehs and burkhas after the withdrawal so they can kiss up the the jihadists as the Europeans they so admire are.

Lastly Bob, when you say Americans use 20% of the earth's resources, you seem to believe those resources are fixed as well and they've all been inventoried. When was that accomplished? I seem to have missed hearing about it. What is the total anyway? How much longer will they last? Jimmy Carter said we'd run out of petroleum by 1990, but he seems to have been off a bit.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

So that's what Pres Bush referred to Nancy Pelosi when he mentioned the drapes...the drapes were not meant for the windows but for Sen Pelosie herself and all the women in her staff...he he he...(sorry Tom, that's a cheap shot but I couldn't resist it)

Sriraj

Tom McLaughlin said...

It sure looks like either Iran is going to strike Israel with nukes or Israel is going to strike Iran first in an attempt to save itself. Israel cannot survive a first strike.

Plutonium was found in Iran today. Ahmadinejad threatened Israel again this week. Olmert met with Bush yesterday. Blair is going wobbly. The Dems are getting ready to subpeona Bush Administration officials and the UN is worried about global warming! I'm worried about global warming too, but not the kind the UN worries about. I'm concerned about the kind that comes in the shape of mushroom clouds.

As I sit here in the mountains of western Maine, I read about all this on my laptop and I wonder: who has the gonads to act first?

And how about you Bob? Are you still worrying about the rainforest?

Anonymous said...

Besides being a brief history lesson, what purpose does this article serve? It is filled with personal assumptions basic partisan idealogy, and name calling. Any child can call the other side sissies, and girly-men, but at no point in time can this be considered a coherent argument. There is only one relevant fact in the entire article, that is that testosterone levels have dropped in the Boston area, but there is no comparison to what levels are like in the rest of the country. Maybe testosterone levels have dropped all over the country, or maybe Mr. McLaughlin's beloved conservatives have just about enough usable sperm to fill a petri dish. I too find that the "American Way" has been a little lost recently, but I do not think writing an article clearly meant to do nothing but inflame the sentiments of the reader, is the way to go about fixing our problem. So why don't you do something useful and die.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Okay. I will. I promise. I just don't know the when or the how yet. Check the obits regularly and one of these days you'll see my name. Meanwhile, I'll continue to annoy smug liberals a little while longer if you don't mind. It's kind of fun.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

In all my years in this country, what I have been amazed by is how rude the so-called liberals and progessives get. One of the main reasons for that is they have no coherent, logical repartees when anyone libertarian/conservative challenges their points-of-view. A case in point is the person who wrote to you, "So why don't you do something useful and die."

This is exactly the vein that one encounters in the Hollywood elites (a la Alec Baldwin and Co), NY television elites (Sat Night Live and Jon stewart are supposed to 'humorous'?!!!!), Air America, Bill Maher, Michael Moore.....these people are self-claimed progessives BUT all of them are NOT "open minded". They simply cannot accept/acknowledge any other point of view. Any person who thinks differently from them is a Fascist or a Nazi or pure evil. Pray, why are these liberals so 'angry'? I have never ever understood their mentality.

Sriraj

Anonymous said...

We are such WIMPS! Why are we not using our nuclear capabilities to take care of Iran? Have we no gonads? Why don't we act first?

Tom, it is interesting how you interpreted my "less uneccessary violence" to "smiling happy people holding hands." Is this one of your talking points?

Also, I never said that natural resources are fixed. What I am saying is that we are using them at a faster rate than they are able to naturally replace themselves and I do not believe that science will find ways to increase their replacement rate.

Robert Dow

Tom McLaughlin said...

I don't think we have to act first, no. Israel will likely do that because they're targeted first by a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad says he'll "wipe them off the map." Israel has had nukes for over forty years for just this kind of situation. They know how to survive when others target them for extinction. They've been doing it for five millenia.

Taking a long view about your other point about running out of resources, I quote:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."
Thomas Malthus 1798

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."
Paul Erlich 1968

" I never said that natural resources are fixed. What I am saying is that we are using them at a faster rate than they are able to naturally replace themselves and I do not believe that science will find ways to increase their replacement rate."
Bob Dow 2006

tomax7 said...

(the 'other' tom)

...i'm afraid Soylent Green might become a reality before Logan's Run.

As you say, who's got the gonads? Looks like the ME muzzies from the kids they are breeding. The US and Canada have become too sissified.

Wonder if that caused Rome to fall also.

Anonymous said...

I am finally getting around to continuing this blog discussion.

First, responding to your above entry that begins “If lowering testosterone resulted....” I agree that Muslims replacing Europeans is a serious concern. How can European government officials not see it happening and act to stop it? There is no rule that I know of that says they have to have open borders like we do....the land of the free....free to come in and take control!

Concerning the Earth’s resources, I do not know what I said that led you to believe that I thought the Earth’s resources have been ‘inventoried’....I have also missed hearing about that. What I did talk about is the danger of having a rate of use that is greater than the rate of replacement.

When I studied resource management in college they always talked about ‘sustainable practices’ but nobody ever wanted to talk about....sustainable at what level of population and at what quality of life for that population.

How many humans do you think we can pack onto this planet? Have you done the math? How many could live the lifestyle we Americans live before the benefits would no longer outweigh the costs?

Now, to respond to your other entry which begins “I don’t think we have to act first....”

Tom, you have a very clever way of using ‘red herring’ (using irrelevant arguments that distract from the original objective) and ‘straw man’ (creating a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the other person, never really refuting the opponents actual argument).

I can’t decide which one you are better at but they both allow you to accomplish something that politicians are very adept at....answering questions without ever answering the question but making it seem, to less intelligent listeners, that they have actually answered the question.

A perfect example of you using the ‘straw man’ tactic was your use of quotes from Thomas Malthus and Paul Erlich (out of context of course) to get the reader saying “oh, how stupid....” followed by my quote which a vulnerable reader will then say “oh, that must be stupid also.”

I don’t appreciate you using that tactic on me.

You are still not responding to my claim that I do not believe science will find ways to increase the replacement rate of resources needed to sustain human populations (minerals in the soil needed for nutritional food for example). I do know that attempts to speed up the replacement rate (growth rate) of trees on tree farms has resulted in production of inferior lumber.

As long as I am bringing up subjects that you have not actually responded to yet....WHY DO WE HAVE SUCH A FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP WITH SAUDI ARABIA WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY HELPING TO FUND SUNNI INSURGENTS IN IRAQ?!? (not to mention their treatment of women that we would criticize and condemn if the country doing it was not rich with oil.....wait, I can’t prove that....)

As always I enjoy and thrive on intelligent conversations and look forward to your replies.

Robert Dow

Tom McLaughlin said...

Why are we friendly to Saudis? Good question. We should be much more aggressive with them but I'm a gadfly, not a politician. I guess our government is cozy with them because they sit on the biggest proven reserves of oil and they're not Al Qaeda. The enemy of our enemy is our friend and Al Qaeda wants to bring down the House of Saud as well as the House of Bush.

As for Thomas Malthus? My citing of him wasn't a red herring or building a straw man either. Two centuries ago, he calculated the number of humans the earth could sustain and was obviously way off. You're asking me to do it too and you're suggesting we're past the point now. I disagree.

Resources will be produced one way or another. If the price of oil goes up more, it will make the development of oil shales in Colorado and tar sands in Alberta feasible. The market will handle it. Alternative sources of energy will emerge when the current ones become too costly. It's not up to you or to me or to professors in the university Resource Management Department. It's up to the market.

As for when our lifestyles' benefits outweight the costs? That's an individual decision for each of us. Ted Kascinski made his in the little cabin in Idaho, but he wanted to make it for us as well. I'm glad he's in the slammer. He was brilliant but nuts, just like so many other enviornmentalists.