Stephen Guy Hardin's HARDIN REPUBLIC

 

The Latest...!

Page Two...

The Op-Ed Page

Vid Clips

The Blogasphere

Publisher's Notes

To Contact

Travels with Bonnie

Stephen Guy Hardin

Glen A. Amos

Leanne Livingston

Eugenia's Notes of Praise

Eugenia Bambas

Louie Theodores

Mark Delk

Byron Harvey

Elise Hardin

A Sailor's Journal

Daria DiGiovanni

Kimberly Morin

The Fourth Republic

Mary Mostert

Sam Olens

Freedom Works

President Obama

Barack's Comrades

Where's Joe...?

The First Lady

The Next President

When Stars Collide

Hollywood From the RIGHT

Media Madness

The Draking Point

Humor In Politics

The Soros Files

The Politics of Race

Immigration Politics

The Politics of Marx

Allah's Packing Heat

The Politics of God

Money,Money, Money

'Green' Is the New Stupid

The Politics of Abortion

The Politics of War

The Politics of Being Gay

The Politics of the Court

The Politics of Gossip

The Politics of Guns

The NRA

The TEA Party

The Libertarians

The Republican Party

Rep. John Boehner

Rep. Dr. Tom Price

Palin's Flying Circus

Where's Mitt ?

Newt Gingrich

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Mike Huckabee

Tim Pawlenty

Michele Bachmann

The Democrat Party

The Bill and Hillary Show

Barney Frank Hates You !

The Empress Pelosi

Is Keith Oberman Insane ?

Chris is Tingling...

Ronald Reagan LIVE

News Links

International Blogs
From Times Online
October 9, 2009

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize

 

Michael Binyon

 

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

The choice of Dr Henry Kissinger and Mr Le Duc Tho as joint winners of the Nobel peace prize continued to provoke criticism today

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.


The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Huffington: 'Obama hasn't lived up to his promises'

Sep. 24, 2009
shani rosenfelder , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President Barack Obama "has not lived up to some of the promises he made," and when it comes to his views on new media, he was "incredibly naïve", co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, told The Jerusalem Post during a visit to Israel.

"The opposition that Obama is facing is coming from many people, including many of us at the Huffington Post, who feel he has not been living up to some of the promises he made. It's not about the expectations from him but the promises," Huffington, who was considered one of the major supporters of Obama during the campaign, said.

Huffington named the dropping of the public option in his health care plan, [the shutting down of] Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of detainees as examples of his failed promises. "Though there is vast improvement since the Bush years, it hasn't lived up to what Obama had promised," she said.

The outspoken blogger urged the president to "exercise his leadership rather than to hold back, which is what he has done in many areas."

When it comes to the Iranian threat, Huffington said the only thing that should be motivating an American president was what's in the best security interest of the United States. "Invading Iraq and staying there was certainly not in the best security interest of the United States. Escalating the war in Afghanistan was certainly not in the best security interest of the United States. Similarly, the decision the US has to make regarding Iran needs to be made in terms of what's in the best security interest of the US."

"Clearly, right now," she asserted, "serious sanctions are what is on the table and that of course makes sense when you look at the way Ahmadinejad is behaving, the absurd statements he is making and of course the internal opposition within the country, which is very significant and growing."

As the creator of a highly successful and resonating "Internet newspaper" in America, which has over 20 million unique users a month, according to Google Analytics, Huffington has also become a pioneer in the evolution of digital journalism, or new media.

Commenting on Obama's statement earlier this week expressing concern that the "direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context," Huffington said, "I think what President Obama said was an incredibly naïve statement. It is not born out of the facts. Today's media includes an online component. Is that what he means by the blogosphere? I mean, The Jerusalem Post has a vibrant online component and so does The New York Times and The Washington Post. It would be impossible to have a major newspaper without a vibrant blogospheric element to it."

Huffington believes in a journalistic approach in which work done by bloggers and traditional journalists is intertwined. "I think that bloggers need to adopt the best traditional values of journalism, including fact checking, and traditional journalists need to adopt the best of the online media world," she said, arguing that the "existence of online media can really facilitate the breaking of stories and the staying on stories."

According to Huffington, "Many major stories break on the front pages of newspapers in the US but die there... We can keep the stories alive by staying on them until there is some real impact."

The full interview with Arianna Huffington will appear next week in The Jerusalem Post


'Race, Rage and Politics'

Jon-Christopher Bua September 21, 2009 8:25 AM  Sky News.com

As I left the White House grounds on Friday afternoon, I ran into two colleagues from the world of politics and the media - CBS's Bob Schieffer and ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

Both of these gentlemen, along with several other major Sunday News Show hosts were "summoned" by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to spend about 15 minutes each in a sort of "round robin" taped interview marathon with President Obama.

This is the first time that a sitting US President would appear on five of the major Sunday Morning shows.

The purpose of this massive media blitz aka "Full Media Monty" as well as last Tuesday's address to a Joint-Session of Congress was to promote the President's health care proposal.

While trying desperately to sell the American people something that many don't think they really need during this address, Representative Joe Wilson (R) South Carolina, broke decorum and yelled out "You Lie".

This outburst was not only inappropriate but it opened up Pandora's box on "Race" once again.

This act of disrespect for both the man and the Office of President enraged both the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, the most senior African American Leader in Congress, to the point of their taking legislative action to reprimand the Congressman.

Many African Americans and others as well thought this was just another example of the extreme right's unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of a black man as president - like "The Birther Movement" that challenges President Obama's US citizenship.

Not to be outdone, former President Jimmy Carter said he believed that the intense reaction President Obama was receiving to his health care reform agenda was due in part to racism and the fact that there are still many whites who do not want him to succeed.

Once again, as in the campaign, President Obama was forced to deal with the distraction of race instead of using this valuable time to focus the American people on the health care debate.

He was forced to address this issue on those Sunday talk shows as he most likely will on "The Late Show With David Letterman".

President Obama is a man on the most important mission of his political career - passing Health Care Reform.

He is his own best "Salesman in Chief" and it is clear he will not take no for an answer this time - he has too much at stake.

It is a very big week ahead for President Obama as he delivers remarks at United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's Climate Change Summit, participates in a bilateral meeting with President Hu of China and delivers remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative, addresses the UN General Assembly.

He also hosts a trilateral meeting with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, participates in a bilateral meeting with President Medvedev of Russia, and then amongst other things, chairs a meeting with UN Security Council Heads of State on nuclear non proliferation.

As the President addresses the General Assembly where the whole world will be waiting and watching to hear what he has to say in this first time public performance, the real show at the UN will behind the scenes.

The world will indeed be watching to see how Poland and the Czech Republic and the traditional US Allies will react to the Obama team after their announcement that the US will not be proceeding with the defence missile shield.

The whole world will also be looking for signs of a "quid pro quo" from Medvedev in exchange for the US abandoning the missile shield programme.

Then it's off to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to host the G20 Summit.

Hey, you say. It's all in a week's work.

True... And we must not forget Senator Max Baucus Health Care Legislation that is sending both Nancy Pelosi on the left and Chuck Grassley on the right to the Maalox Extra Strength Liquid.

They say in Washington that if no one likes your bill, it is likely to pass...possibly a good sign for the President...we shall see. It's a long long time from September to Election Day, November 3.

As if President Obama did not already have enough on his plate, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and now the White House request for blind, black Governor David Patterson to "withdraw" from the Governor's race in an effort to shore up the New York 2010 ticket is seen by opponents as blatant and abject political interference.

Ironically, on this very day in 1998 Bill Clinton's Grand Jury testimony in the Monica Lewinsky Affair was released.

To prove that there are indeed second...and third acts in politics, guess who I think might be looking hungrily at that New York Governor's seat?

"The Comeback Kid Returns"


Wednesday Sep 16, 2009

Rosner's Domain: So, should Jews be liberals? the debate continues

Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 14
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter!!!

More on Why Jews are Liberals? the question on which all Jewish and non-officially-but-practically Jewish publications now commission articles and opinion pieces.

Max Fisher, at The Atlantic, conveniently summarizes the views of those thinking that Jews should not be liberals, and those thinking they should. Click here.

Commentary holds a "symposium" on the topic.

Ami Eden also summerizes the debate, including Podhoretz' original interview and article, and Leon Wieseltier's harsh critic:

Norman Podhoretz loves his people and loves his country, and I salute him for it, since I love the same people and the same country. But this is a dreary book. Its author has a completely axiomatic mind that is quite content to maintain itself in a permanent condition of apocalyptic excitation. His perspective is so settled, so confirmed, that it is a wonder he is not too bored to write. The veracity of everything he believes is so overwhelmingly obvious to him that he no longer troubles to argue for it. Instead there is only bewilderment that others do not see it, too. "Why Are Jews Liberals?" is a document of his bewilderment; and there is a Henry Higgins-­like poignancy to his discovery that his brethren are not more like himself. But the refusal of others to assent to his beliefs is portrayed by Podhoretz not as a principled disagreement that is worthy of respect, but as a human failing. Jews are liberals, he concludes, as a consequence of "willful blindness and denial." He has a philosophy. They have a psychology.

Sky News.com

Michelle's Shorts Too Short?

Greg Milam August 24, 2009 6:25 AM

 
  • Recommend post (0)

I know its summer. I know its silly season. But really?

The fuss about the fuss about Michelle Obama’s summer shorts is just too clichéd for words.

Here’s how it works:

First lady pictured in summer wear.

Everyone and their dog voices an opinion on them, what they mean, what they don’t mean, whether we should care, whether we should beat ourselves up about caring. You get the picture.

That august organ Time magazine even poses the question as to whether you would describe them as hot pants, cut offs or booty shorts.

(Feel free to add your own suggestion below, of course. Far be it from me to miss out on a pointless media kerfuffle about an attractive female celebrity. Just wouldn’t be right).

The problem is that the Obamas are now on holiday (sorry, ‘vacation’) so all the vacuous bits of US media have to hang on to is this titbit of a talking point from their pre-holiday holiday.

Because not only is Michelle Obama very photogenic, in shorts or not (stop it), but she also shifts newspapers, drives clicks and is handy wallpaper for the morning TV shows.

She is a fashion icon, an inspiration to young women around the world, hugely successful in her own right and married to the most powerful man on the planet.

Brave, then, of Time to suggest that “she just didn't look particularly good in shorts”. Ouch.

So, yes, everyone in the US SHOULD be talking about healthcare, the victims of the financial crisis, the rising death toll in Afghanistan.

But why do that when you can focus instead on something that isn’t gloomy enough to drive you to the bottle?

Summer is fun.

Shorts are fun.

The death and misery will be back – don’t you worry.


cafebabel.com - the European magazine 

Bush's 'very dangerous' Iran one of Obama's 'biggest challenges'

US embassy, Tehran (Image courtesy of [ john ]/ Flickr)

US embassy, Tehran (Image courtesy of [ john ]/ Flickr)

Bush and Obama's comments came ahead of Iran's official 'wait and see' statement on 15 January. Cynics boast that the president-elect has not enough authority to fulfill his promise of unconditional talks because of the traditional pattern of politics in US. As 'day one' approaches on 20 January, a young Iranian blogger paints the wider Iran-US picture

Analysis

by Kourosh Ziabari - Rasht (Caspian Sea coast)

19/01/09

Tags : United States, Iran islamic republic of, Barack Obama, World affairs.

Iran is a geopolitically sensitive and influential state. Not only is it close to the world's largest enclosed body of water, the Caspian Sea, it is also the passageway of more than 50% of the world's crude oil in the Persian Gulf. Given its economic, political and cultural dominance over the region (it is also the world's seventeenth largest economy according to the IMF 2007 report of GDP per capita), it's not surprising that the Islamic republic is under perpetual global spotlight.

Students protest Columbia University's invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, September 2007Students protest Columbia University's invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, September 2007 | (Image: David Shankbone/ Wikimedia)

Iran and the 'east'

Iran never relinquished becoming a close ally and political colony of the US. Statesmen have disdainfully considered Iran as their reserved oil well in the Middle East. This notion has been repudiated by Iranians throughout history, specifically following the Islamic revolution in 1979, which was intrinsically based on an anti-American contemplation. Iran became controversial in the early eighties, when Iranian political leaders courageously publicised their anti-hegemonic criteria against America.

Following the overthrow of the American-backed Shah, Iran used to call the US and its European companions - including the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Belgium - entirely 'west' due to their unprecedented closeness and similar stance. It began to switch its approach toward the missed 'east' little by little. In the political literature of Iran, 'east' ideologically denotes the states which obscurely indicate signs of anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist tendencies in their foreign policy; China, Russia, Latin American countries, Greece and some eastern European states.

Eight years of Bush

The eight years of outgoing president George W. Bush's incumbency was eight years of contempt and suffering not only for Iranians, but also for other non-aligned, developing nations. The aggressive and belligerent stance which Bush took against Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia and Iran during his tenure portrayed a warmonger and horrific image of this 62-year old Freestoner in Iran. He intensified the anti-Iranian rhetoric by propounding the dossier of attacking Iran because of their nuclear technologies, inflicting financial and academic sanctions and categorising Iran in the 'axis of evil', which was the most conspicuous aggression of Bush toward Iran.

Today, American citizens in Tehran express great hopes and penchants about the election of Barack Obama and policy over the next four years. Citizen journalist Bill Yontz praises Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appearance on CNN's Larry King Live chat show in September 2008 (see video below). In an email, American mother Kimberly says that she is arranging a two week trip to Iran once the new president is sworn in on 20 January.

A case for black and white 

The first 'Black' in the 'White' House, as the headline for Iran Newspaper ran after election results on 4 November 2008, won hearts and souls. Obama is also popular in Iran because of his innovative slogans and anti-Bush mottos. From the Iranian point of view, his breakthrough is considered as a 'reform'. The betterment of political, not financial ties between Iran and Europe has always led to a major softening of Americans' approach toward Iran. Multilateral economic and financial ties of Iran with the US and Europe augmented; in July 2008, Britain's The Guardian reported that US exports to Iran had jumped dramatically during Bush's years in office, in spite of his tough rhetoric and the imposition of fresh economic sanctions.

US exports to Iran jumped dramatically during Bush's years in office, in spite of his tough rhetoric

Both countries will move toward the reconciliation and expansion of political ties, as they have already a batch of cultural and scientific relations. Moreover, it's anticipated that Obama is not going to reiterate the blunders of Bush in taking a hostile stance toward Iran and thwarting the process of Iran-Europe talks.


Four years on, Katrina remains cursed by rumour, cliche, lies and racism

Ordinary people mostly behaved well. Those in power panicked, spread fear and fiction, and showed eagerness to kill

  • Comments (91)
  • Buzz up!
  • Digg it
  • Rebecca Solnit
    • Rebecca Solnit
    • The Guardian, Wednesday 26 August 2009
    • Article history

Given a choice between their worldview and the facts, it's always interesting how many people toss the facts. Right now, the United States is plagued by an army of "birthers" who claim that because Barack Obama was not really born in America, he's not legitimately president. Their evidence is non-existent, their arguments loopy, but people who find our non-white president unacceptable would rather scour the Hawaiian medical records system and invent bizarre theories than face their own internal turmoil. Or racism.

What people were willing to believe about Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans four years ago is a more serious matter. Of racism. And cliche. The story, as the mainstream media presented it at the time, was about marauding hordes of looters, rapists and murderers swarming through the streets. The descriptions were pretty clearly focused on African-Americans, the great majority left behind in the evacuation of the city (which was then two-thirds black anyway).

There were supposed to be a lot of murder victims and murderers in the Superdome, the sports stadium the city opened up as a refuge of last resort. The rumours were believed so fervently that they were used to turn New Orleans into a prison city, with supplies and would-be rescuers prevented from entering and the victims prevented from evacuating. The belief that a Hobbesian war of all-against-all had broken loose justified treating the place as a crime zone or even a hostile country rather than a place in which grandmothers and toddlers were stranded in hideous conditions, desperately in need of food, water, shelter and medical attention.

Louisiana's governor at the time, Kathleen Blanco, announced as she dispatched National Guard troops: "I have one message for these hoodlums: these troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary, and I expect they will." She and the city's mayor had called off the rescue efforts to focus on protecting private property – with lethal force if necessary. The sheriff of the suburb across the Crescent City Connection bridge from downtown New Orleans turned back stranded tourists and locals at gunpoint. "As we approached the bridge," wrote two stranded paramedics, "armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our heads."

Katrina was a fairly terrible natural disaster. But it turned into a horrific social catastrophe because of the response of the people in power, spurred on by their willingness to believe a hysterical, rumour-mongering media. (Journalists on the ground were often fiercely empathic and right on the mark, but those at a remove were all too willing to believe the usual tsunami of cliches about disaster and human nature.)

The story that few can wrap their minds around is that ordinary people mostly behaved well – there were six bodies in the Superdome, including four natural deaths and a suicide, not the hundreds that the federal government expected when it sent massive refrigerator trucks to collect the corpses. On the other hand, people in power behaved appallingly, panicking, spreading rumours, and themselves showing an eagerness to kill and a pathological lack of empathy.

Amusingly, the New Orleans Police Department stripped a Cadillac dealership of its cars, some of which were found as far away as Texas. Less amusingly, they shot a couple of unarmed – and, of course, black – family groups on the Danziger Bridge shortly after the storm in the only such incident to receive much press coverage. A middle-aged mother had her forearm blown off; a mentally disabled 40-year-old on his way to his brother's dental office was shot five times in the back and died, and a teenager was also killed.

Truth, the first casualty of war, is pretty imperilled in disasters, too. One group of suburban white men who believed the rumours or just anticipated that in the absence of authority we all become monsters became monsters themselves, even as they fantasised they were preserving order. These men in Algiers Point across the river from the city of New Orleans gathered an arsenal and launched their own little murder spree, killing several black men and injuring and threatening others.

They were the real rampaging gangs, and they were not shy about what they did – they boasted of it to videographers and have talked openly about it since. And with confidence, since there have to date been no legal repercussions. They claimed to be defending their property and their neighbourhood, but their most vocal surviving victim, Donnell Herrington, was an armoured truck driver trying to evacuate after he had stayed behind to take care of his grandparents. Herrington, who rescued those grandparents and dozens of neighbours by boat from their flooded apartment complex, then tried to find an evacuation point in Algiers for himself, and was shot twice at close range with a shotgun and nearly bled to death before neighbours got him to the hospital. The vigilantes shot him because he was black, and because they could get away with it, and because they were inflamed by the news accounts.

The story was not hard to find, and I picked up a lot of pieces of it while doing research for a book on disaster and civil society. Though New Orleans was overrun by national and international journalists, no one would touch it until I enlisted the brilliant investigative journalist AC Thompson. Despite his cover story in the Nation that included admissions of murder, many still deny that the killings took place. Given a choice between their worldview and the facts, some choose the worldview.

Most people behave beautifully in disasters (and most Americans, incidentally, believe Obama was born in this country). The majority in Katrina took care of each other, went to great lengths to rescue each other – including the "cajun navy" of white guys with boats who entered the flooded city the day after the levees broke – and were generally humane and resourceful. A minority that included the most powerful believed they were preventing barbarism while they embodied it.

We are entering an era of heightened disaster, thanks to climate change. Being prepared for disaster will mean being prepared to sift truth from rumour, and being prepared to adjust our worldview. There is some incredible ugliness to the truth about Katrina. But, four years on, the lies hide more beauty, and hide where our dangers and our salvation may lie in times of crisis.

Rebecca Solnit's new book is A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster


A counter-revolution is stirring in Czech bedrooms

Some Czechs just don't do true love; or if they do, they do it twice (Image: ©MadPole/Flickr.com)

Some Czechs just don't do true love; or if they do, they do it twice (Image: ©MadPole/Flickr.com)

Young people today: worse off than their parents were? No chance! Today’s generation of parents in the Czech Republic can’t complain about their children when it comes to the topic of sexuality; it's the kids that are the conservative ones...

by n- ost - Prag Translation: Aatish Pattni

 

  • English
    • German [original version]
    • Spanish
    • Italian
    • Polish

27/08/09

 

Sex wherever you lookSex wherever you look | (Image: ©detritus/Flickr)

The Czechs generally count themselves as being very liberal on the subject of sex. Numerous porno mags grace the newspaper kiosks for all to see - and that includes children. Looking for 'sexfriends' online is not a problem either. There are at least 20 web sites available in the Czech Republic for this very purpose. TV adverting for any conceivable product often has a somewhat sordid undertone. The slogan for a brand of schnapps says something along the lines of, ‘Men have their hormonal days too’. Interestingly, Czech women are amused by this and don’t find it in bad taste at all. 

Forever faithful in marriage; the ‘in thing’

This element of easygoingness made itself known 10 years ago when the first survey on the subject of sex made headlines all over the country. Two thirds of married men and 50% of married women admitted that they were not averse to the idea of extramarital relations. Apparently, this had little to do with the 50% divorce figures however. Cheating was not given as the main reason for divorce; more often, it was a case of ‘differing plans’ in life.

The Czechs like marriage so much, they do it more than onceThe Czechs like marriage so much, they do it more than once | (Image: ©Jon Whitton/Flickr)

Czech men are two-timers and casual about it. The meaning of being forever faithful has changed notably in the last 10 years. Just 55% of married men and 34% of married women confessed to being unfaithful to their partners in the latest survey. A high figure on the European spectrum, but for the Czechs it’s certainly a drop! According to the study, men are mostly the ‘casual two-timers’. Women are warming to the idea of a long term fling as a result.

The Czechs don’t do car sex!

Sexologists recognised differences earlier with the age of consent. Young girls, like young boys, were having their first timid contact at the age of 15. After one year they begin to start exploring (‘Czeching out’?) each others bodies. The first petting starts for Czech young people at 17 and the first ‘serious’ sexual liaison at 18. Unlike their parents, the young people of today are exercising more ‘precaution’; for 35% the use of a condom is essential while only 19% of their parents’ generation thought of using this type of contraception. The number of those who regularly have different partners is on the decline. Unlike their American contemporaries for example, the Czechs don’t have first intercourse in cars; they do it out in the open air, in their own homes or at their parents second homes in the countryside. 

Confusion remains despite all the light-heartedness…

Some suprising results, for someSome suprising results, for some | (Image:

©Vidiot/Flickr)
To put it mildly, the parents’ lack of explanation is making it worse. No more than 15% of boys and 20% of girls were made aware of the mysteries of sexuality by parents or in school; 40% of boys and 30% of girls are guided by their friends ‘experiences’. The schools have acted somewhat puritanical up until now; when it comes to sex education the boys and girls are neatly spilt up. The internet – usually the most important source of information – hardly has any involvement in this hot topic. 

Something else also sticks out from the survey findings; as liberal as the Czechs are when it comes to sex, a lot of people still have a problem with homosexuality. No more than 60% regard sexual relations between the same sex as normal. The rest have a problem with it.

Size doesn't matter, either!

Finally, the question was raised in the survey regarding the length of male genitals. All over the world, men (and women too for that matter) had to be happy with 12.5 centimetres, or roughly five inches. Only 16% of Czech women wish for a man with a large penis. Two men (presumably of average size themselves) who wrote a commentary on this survey in the Lidove noviny newspaper breathed a sigh of relief at this, 'We can all be happy with that. Bring on more of these surveys!'

From n-ost correspondent Hans-Jörg Schmidt (22.04.2009, Prague)


THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...


COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC  2009, 2010.  All Rights Reserved.

Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

We Are the RIGHT and We Will WIN!