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.