All married men cheat

I have been castigated recently for saying, “All married men cheat.” I have two responses to this. I admit that, of course, I have no knowledge of the exact percentage of married men who cheat. And in fact, I think there are strong reasons to believe that no one can know the exact percentage. The number of men who cheat but don’t want to admit it -- the number of men who are faithful and don’t want to admit it. And then, of course, a man who, when asked if he has
ever cheated on his wife, answers “no”, even if he is telling the strict truth, can really only mean “no, I haven’t yet.” In order to get a true picture of the percentage of married men who cheat, you would not only have to get a fair and representative statistical sample of all married men -- a sample which, although representative, somehow happened to be made up of completely truthful men, and you would also have to talk to these men at the precise moment of their death. Call no man faithful until he is dead, so to speak.

But really, to discuss how many married men cheat is beside the point. Although I phrased it badly, what I really meant is that adultery, although not universal, is inherent in the nature of marriage; just as incest is inherent in the nature of the family, and force is inherent in the nature of government. We try to wall it off, but it’s always surging back, showing up in various disguises. So a faithful man, if he exists -- one who is faithful not from cowardice, and not from lack of opportunity, but because he truly doesn’t want anyone but his wife -- if he exists, he is a greater miracle than the most shameless cheater. The reason why the media coverage of Tiger Woods’s adultery was so frustrating: society forcing us to pretend to a surprise and shock and outrage which, most likely, no one with the slightest acquaintance with the world felt.

Money vs. friendship

Money substitutes for friendship, but friendship cannot substitute for money.

If you're moving, you can track down a friend with a car and beg people to help you carry stuff. Or you can hire movers. Similarly, if you need a ride, a hairdo, a loan, childcare, a place to stay, entertainment, or someone to talk to; you can get what you need with friends, but you can pay for a perfect substitute. And then, of course, at a level a bit out of my price range, you can buy even social pleasures for money: the prostitute or trophy wife, the adopted children, the "personal assistant" or entourage, the therapist or personal physician, even the accommodating Congressman.

And, of course, with money you don't have to humiliate yourself by dancing attendance on others. There is no possibility of refusal. You can get what you want now, without waiting for another's schedule. And you know the people you hire to provide services will be (mostly) prompt, reliable and skilful. They won't disappear if you say the wrong thing.

In conclusion: you could spend the weekend spending money with friends, or you could get a second job. I know what I'll do.

Too much freedom?

" Too much freedom and non-conformity can be just as stifling and miserable as conformity and repression."

The sentiment expressed in these words is one of our modern platitudes. It can be found in the most diverse contexts--just now I found this quote in an article on The Simpsons. Yet this thought comes from a place of pure ignorance. Which of us has ever had the chance to tire of freedom and non-conformity? Which of us has even come close to tiring of them? It's like saying "getting everything you want won't make you happy." Well, maybe not, but have you tried getting everything you want?

Terrifying SEA LEOPARDS

(Now more commonly called "leopard seals".) From "Endurance", by Alfred Lansing:

Returning from a hunting trip, Orde-Lees, traveling on skis across the rotting surface of the ice, had just about reached camp when an evil, knoblike head burst out of the water just in front of him. He turned and fled, pushing as hard as he could with his ski poles and shouting for Wild to bring his rifle.
The animal–a sea leopard–sprang out of the water and came after him, bounding across the ice with the peculiar rocking-horse gait of a seal on land. The beast looked like a small dinosaur, with a long, serpentine neck.
After a half-dozen leaps, the sea leopard had almost caught up with Orde-Lees when it unaccountably wheeled and plunged again into the water. By then, Orde-Lees had nearly reached the opposite side of the floe; he was about to cross to safe ice when the sea leopard’s head exploded out of the water directly ahead of him. The animal had tracked his shadow across the ice. It made a savage lunge for Orde-Lees with its mouth open, revealing an enormous array of sawlike teeth. Orde-Lees’ shouts for help rose to screams and he turned and raced away from his attacker.
The animal leaped out of the water again in pursuit just as Wild arrived with his rifle. The sea leopard spotted Wild, and turned to atttack him. Wild dropped to one knee and fired again and again at the onrushing beast. It was less than 30 feet away when it finally dropped.
Two dog teams were required to bring the carcass into camp. It measured 12 feet long, and they estimated its weight at about 1100 pounds. It was a predatory species of seal, and resembled a leopard only in its spotted coat–and its disposition. When it was butchered, balls of hair 2 and 3 inches in diameter were found in its stomach–the remains of crabeater seals it had eaten. The sea leopards’s jawbone, which measured nearly 9 inches across, was given to Orde-Lees as a souvenir of his encounter.
In his diary that night, Worsley observed: “A man on foot in soft, deep snow and unarmed would not have a chance against such an animal as they almost bound along with a rearing, undulating motion at least five miles an hour. They attack without provocation, looking on man as a penguin or seal."

On riches

From Megan McArdle:

Scientists now think that King Tut may have died of malaria. As the fellow who sent me the link dryly noted, King Tut did not have good comprehensive health insurance.

All kidding aside, this is a good excuse to meditate on just how rich we are. King Tut was probably the wealthiest man in the world during his time. He died of something that wouldn't kill the most abjectly immiserated welfare mother in the United States today, because of a combination of public health efforts, and cheap antimalarial drugs.

You always need to factor in things like this when you talk about changes in living standards over time. All the positive changes in society mean that the absolute difference between the income of Bill Gates and the man who valets his car is larger than it has ever been in history. But the actual difference in comfort between the two of them is probably much smaller than the difference between JP Morgan and his stableboy. And both Gates and the valet are almost immeasurably better off than their predecessors.

Muddled modern ideas of virtue

Jared Diamond, one of the most perfect exemplifications of modern liberal thinking, is writing about Montana's environmental problems:

I initially wondered whether Montana's environmental problems and polarizing disputes might involve selfish behavior on the part of individuals who advanced their own interests in full knowledge that they were simultaneously damaging the rest of Montana society. That may be true in some cases...[but] whenever I have actually been able to talk with Montanans, I have found their actions to be consistent with their values, even if those values clash with my own or those of other Montanans. That is, for the most part Montana's difficulties cannot be simplistically attributed to selfish[,] evil people knowingly and reprehensibly profiting at the expense of neighbors. Instead, they involve clashes between people whose own particular backgrounds and values cause them to favor policies differing from those favored by people with different backgrounds and values.

But what do you mean by the word 'evil', Mr. Diamond, if not acting according to values which clash with yours? And what do you mean by 'selfishness', if not a person's acting in accordance with his own values regardless of what others value?

This over-tolerant and muddled thinking would seem to deny the possibility of any true evil or selfishness. And there seems to be some vague idea here that not being a hypocrite, in other words, acting in accordance with one's values, equals virtue. Or even that having values at all guarantees that a person is not evil.

The standard is not that low--everyone has values, and I would even say everyone acts in accordance with them (those who seem hypocritical are acting in accordance with what they really value, rather than what they claim to value.) But very few are virtuous or even well-intentioned.

Also, has anyone else noticed how very badly edited all this guy's books are?

The articles of religion are some of them practical and some speculative. Now, though both sorts consist in the knowledge of truth, yet these terminate simply in the understanding, those influence the will and manners.

Did that confuse you? Of course it did, because in English, we no longer distinguish between 'these' and 'those' in terms of literary priority, but rather only in terms of physical proximity (or in some unsubtle abstract terms--those opinions are his, these opinions are mine, although I'm trying to sound objective.) In French, they still use 'ceux-ci' and 'ceux-là' as Locke does above. French is very useful for understanding any older English.

How odd to think that in Burke's time, 'professional' meant 'lower class' (as in a person who has a profession rather than living off his land), and, now, it means 'upper class' (a person who has a white-collar job, rather than working in retail or in a factory or being unemployed.) (You can see this latter use in Craigslist postings for roommates. Everyone describes himself as 'professional', since he is afraid of saying 'rich', 'educated' or 'white'.)

A note on the increasing democratization of society, and on the importance of a job to Americans.

In other news, I learned that I am technically a member of the middle quintile--the middle middle class. Better than I thought, but still unsatisfying. The paychecks come too slowly, and I still don't know how to dress.

Women and cooking

I have finished a book called Perfection Salad: Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century.

Fascinating to learn that in the last years of the nineteenth century, foods were thought healthy in proportion as they were easy to digest. Vegetables and fruits were thought to be near valueless, and when vegetables were served, they were boiled into submission; the authorities recommended that cucumbers be boiled for twenty minutes, celery for half an hour, green beans for one to three hours! and beets for twelve hours. After which, vegetables were nearly always served covered in a white sauce made of flour, milk, butter, and usually no other flavorings. This is the dainty, aspirational cuisine of Edith Wharton.

The female authorities on cooking were not exactly feminist rebels--although they tried to introduce scientific and businesslike methods into the kitchen, they showed no resistance to certain common prejudices--for instance, the belief that women don't really know what it's like to be hungry--if not reminded to eat by their husbands and children, they might go for days without nourishment. Even female cooks bragged about the smallness of their appetites.

Even today, although women would seem to be associated with food, too often they have kept themselves apart from culinary hedonism. Recipes in women's magazines are described as cheap, low in calories, and most importantly, simple and easy to prepare. Most often women are given snacks rather than full meals. Men's magazines, on the other hand, offer us flavorful, spicy dishes with exotic ingredients and generous amounts of meat. Men's cocktails are made of expensive whiskey and arcane kinds of bitters. Women's 'cocktails' are pomegranate-mango juice with--if you must--a 'splash' of vodka.

And, while articles on restaurants and bars are a staple of men's magazines, there is no suggestion in women's magazines that these establishments even exist--well, except the constant warnings that a woman who drinks will probably get herself killed. How annoying.

There is also classism to laugh at; for instance, the bizarre assertion that, when people have different tastes in food, it shows that they have "not enough other interests besides that in eating and drinking". If people were enlightened and exercised enough, all personal preferences would disappear, and the Southerners, Negroes, Irish and Italians would all adopt the diet of bourgeois Bostonians.

the Donner Party

Have you ever heard of the Donner Party? Everyone has, yet not many have read the real, fascinating story! Intellectually fascinating, I mean, because an intellect such as my own would never be attracted to the mere sensational story of cannibalism and death. The book I refer to, of course, is Ethan Rarick’s book Desperate Passage: The Donner Party’s Perilous Journey West. I kept a list of the fifty or sixty members of the party and crossed them off as they died!

The patterns of death are fascinating. The many children (some born along the way) died in droves--they were fed well, but were very susceptible to infectious disease. Married men did fairly well; single men, however, almost all died. I was surprised to learn that a young, unfettered single man at his physical peak actually had a worse chance of survival than a middle-aged widow with many young children to feed.

In general, the women (almost all married) fared better than men. Among those who were in their twenties, only one woman died, while only one man lived. Of course, women need fewer calories than men; moreover, once their bodies run out of calories, they have more body fat to draw upon. But I suppose that having the moral and practical support of a family made a big difference.

This story also illustrates one of my favorite maxims--that man can get used to anything. Take a look at this journal entry from a 12-year-old girl, describing her night spent on the salt plains in Utah, miles from shelter of any kind--it sounds like typical adolescent hyperbole, until you realize she is telling the literal truth.

It was the couldes night you ever saw. The wind blew and if it haden bin for the dogs we would have Frosen.

Now, what happened, to be clear, was that the Donner party got stuck in early winter a few miles below a pass in the Sierra Nevada mountains. The pass became impassable just before they got there, and they were forced to winter in the valley, in jury-rigged huts, sending up the occasional expedition to check on the pass. Ultimately one of these expeditions succeeded and brought back several different rescue parties--but before that, there were long months of waiting. So the cannibalism wasn’t a momentary act of desperation--it became a routine for them. They ate their cattle, sucked the marrow out of its bones, ate their pets, and drank soup made from their boiled shoes. But after all of those expediments failed, they started eating dead bodies. Again, after having to contemplate the possibility of cannibalism for weeks and months, they were capable of talking about it in blasé tones. Here is the first mention of cannibalism in their journals:

Mrs Murphy said here yesterday that thought she would Commence on Milt & eat him. I dont think that she has done so yet. It is distressing.

Yes. Distressing.

It might be relevant to point out here that, since the ground was frozen and snow-covered, and the gravediggers weak with starvation, no one who died in the valley of whatever cause received what used to be called a Christian burial. Instead, typically, a few of the stronger people dragged the corpse outside, only a few feet away from the huts, and covered it with a few shovelfuls of snow--if that. Naturally, the bodies never decomposed in the cold. Thus, as more and more died of starvation and disease, the pioneers were unintentionally creating a sort of meat locker outside their front doors. This makes it easier to explain how, almost on impulse, a person might eat human flesh.

When people turn to cannibalism, they follow a certain pattern. (There are studies, you see.) When a body is fresh, the warm blood of the jugular is most prized. The arms and legs provide meat, but the most nutrition comes from the inner organs. The hips are a good source of fat. The head and hands, being the most identifiably human and personal parts, are only rarely eaten. So you see, even in cases of cannibalism, there is an etiquette to be followed. The real distressing part came when this etiquette was violated--after the rescue.

After a few of the party (known as the Forlorn Hope) finally got through over the pass, they still hadn’t reached civilization. They reached only one farflung outpost--a fort almost a hundred miles from the nearest town. The men at the fort immediately got together all the supplies they could and all the men who willing to go, and set out to hike over the snow-covered pass. Three different rescue parties arrived, and brought out with them all the people they could; the younger children could be carried, but the adult survivors would have to hike out. But when the fourth (and last) rescue party arrived at the camp, they had to leave behind the few adults who were lame or too ill to hike--and only a minimal amount of supplies could be spared for them.

I can only imagine how wrenching it must have been to get through the entire winter, finally witness the arrival of the rescue party, and have to watch them hike away again. They promised to return in spring.

When spring came around, the men of the fort returned with ample supplies. They found the camp covered with blood and guts. A number of bodies were lying in the open, ribcages ripped open. Skulls were stewing in a cooking pot. Of the five pioneers left behind, four had died and been eaten. The one man left was a lame German named Louis Keseberg. He bragged about his cannibalism, talking about which parts of the body he considered most delicious, and sounding glad that he had so many bodies to choose from. When given beef and bread to eat, he rejected it, saying he preferred human meat to any other. One supposes he must have been a little deranged after his ordeal. Ultimately, unlike any of the other survivors, he was put on trial for his actions. (He had never been very sociable and, remember, this was during a period in American history when Germans were still considered dangerous foreigners.) However, since there was no firm evidence that he had killed in order to eat, he was acquitted.

In the end, it could have been a lot worse. Of the original 87 pioneers, 39 died and 48 survived. With the possible exception of Keseberg, there was only one incident in which the pioneers killed someone in order to eat him. This was during the passage over the mountains--and even then, they did not kill one of their one, but rather their Spanish-Indian guide. Here is the author on the remarkably law-abiding behavior of the early pioneers in general:

[People] quit the United States when they crossed the Continental Divide–the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase–and so technically they were no longer subject to American law. Nevertheless, the developing credo of the western migration was one of remarkable commitment to legal procedure. When crime struck, emigrants typically formed courts to try the defendant, often with a rather elaborate legal structure that included a judge, jury, and lawyers for the prosecution and defense...Nor were these show courts. Emigrants took great pains to ensure some element of fairness, often recruiting people from other companies to act as judge or jury so as to gain greater impartiality. In some cases, even though the wagons were racing against time, parties halted their progress to find suitable jurors in other companies or spent precious hours tracking down suspects or investigating a crime scene.