House of Eratosthenes

So in late January San Francisco was rocked by a scandal: The Mayor, Gavin Newsom, dorked his best friend’s wife. Here’s what piqued my interest. Name the issue: In San Francisco, things play differently than they do anywhere else. Name an issue that has something to do with men screwing women, or vice versa, or men screwing men or women screwing women. Something to do with fornicatin’. San Francisco becomes an even more different place.

And yet, every paragraph of this story, apart from city & person names, could have been applied to anywhere else. It comes down to this — the gals, single or married, say if the potholes are all filled what do I care about the Mayor’s personal life? It’s all good. And the guys say…wait, what?

Poked his buddy’s wife? That’s WRONG! It’s a betrayal of the man code!

But a funny thing happened after the headlines hit and the buzz began: Many women said they were ready to forgive and forget.

Not men, though. No way. Many said they would never trust Newsom again as long as they lived. Some were livid; many were incredulous. The difference? Apparently it is the Man Code, a set of rigid but unwritten boundaries over which no man may step. Break the Man Code, and you’re toast.

“It’s a huge betrayal,” sputtered Jason Mundstuk, 67, a business owner from Oakland who got upset just talking about it. “It’s big. It’s mythical.”

C’mon, you say, what is this, a TV beer commercial? Evidently not. These guys were dead serious. Make no mistake — having an affair with the wife of a trusted male colleague is an irrevocable Man Code violation.

“Hello?” wrote Mike Mulholland, 43, who grew up in the Bay Area before moving to San Diego County. “Newsom slept with his friend’s wife. What if he stole from a friend? Or tried to frame a friend? Would that also be nobody’s business?”

This clip makes pretty much the same point, offering the same evidence and drawing the same conclusions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E-7JcS1Jc

But this brings me to the meat of it. I was digesting all this information, and on a whim I did a Google on “Man Code.” There’s a lot of stupid crap out there with man codes. But I was surprised to see the longest “code,” was the one that made the most sense. Worth bookmarking. I’m a little wishy-washy on Nos. 7 and 14, and maybe No. 8 as well, but everything else on the list makes perfect sense. For the most part.

For those wondering, the subject of the beer commercial is covered in #12, and Mayor Newsom’s transgression is mostly addressed by…well, it’s not in there. Some things are just too hideous even for the Man Code.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

What I Learned From Casino Royale
Monday, April 30th, 2007

For this weekend, my son’s obsession was Casino Royale which, after the very first viewing at the real-live theater, he had previously condemned as “kind of boring for a Bond movie.” Having skimmed through a sampling of the previous twenty installments, he seems to have come to the conclusion that this rebooted Bond is far more interesting and substantial. After repeat viewings, the story begins to make sense and kind of grows on you. I agree.

There is a reason why it’s taken over half a century to put this on the movie screen properly, so all the excitement of stealing money from bad guys in a card game can be captured in full. It’s got to be a very tough thing to do.

I consider myself to be an authority now — when ten-year-old boys like something, they don’t want to see it just once. With the weekend now gone, I could probably recite every line in the movie, and here is what I learned from watching it. Warning, some could be considered spoilers:

1. If it’s a place you need to film with a surveillance camera, don’t store propane there.
2. If the bitch is good-lookin’, she’s ALWAYS got a boyfriend.
3. The CIA doesn’t need the money.
4. Keep track of the metal suitcase.
5. If M thinks you’re bent, she’ll send a double-oh after you. You just might be the second kill.
6. If the first step of your interrogation is the removal of testicular support, just stop everything right there and tell him what he wants to know.
7. Don’t bet against the market.
8. Double-oh agents dress appropriately for action adventures, until they get betrayed by their girlfriends. After that they wear suits and silk ties all the time.
9. Money isn’t as important as knowing who to trust.
10. Trust no one (which is somehow reconciliable with the above?).
11. Land Rovers suck. Drive Ford.
12. Don’t get grouchy with your wife just because you lost your car and all your money in a game.
13. Send text messages through a network that DOESN’T track your GPS location. And if you fall for this once, don’t do it again or you might lose a kneecap.
14. Don’t let anyone know where you keep your gun.
15. When your new girlfriend’s cell phone is ringing constantly, find out why.
16. Don’t leave your drink unattended when you’re playing for millions of dollars.
17. Don’t hide from a man with a gun, in a building that’s being kept afloat by pressurized air pontoons.
18. Shoot the camera first. They don’t care what you do, they care what you’re filmed doing.
19. Double-oh operatives don’t have to breathe hard after sprinting, even endlessly. But their life expectancies are very, very short.
20. Don’t break into the boss’ house.
21. Don’t gamble in the futures market when your customer demands “complete security,” because a hundred millions dollars buys a really, really big knife.
22. Just because she’s guilty, doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
23. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. But don’t forget to watch the friends.
24. Double-check the account number before the funds are transferred.
25. Just because he’s younger and thinner than you doesn’t mean he’s a valet.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

As a Movie Character
Sunday, April 29th, 2007

As a movie character, I promise to…

1. Reject any assigned phone number for my house or cell phone that does not begin with 555.
2. Leave the keys in the ignition of whatever I own. All the time, no matter what.
3. If the lights go out and I try to figure out why, I will always walk backwards. If female and good-looking, I will first take a long slow shower.
4. I will not be slowed down by a punch to the nose, or even by a kick in the face. I will keep swinging, virtually begging for more. Even if precariously balancing on a thin girder a thousand feet above the sidewalk.
5. However, if someone gives me a good karate chop to the back or the neck, I faint immediately and stay asleep for hours.
6. As a man, I will scold my female colleague to go home. As a woman, I will insist on tagging along with those four timeless magic words, “I’m going with you!”
7. I will meet all my work obligations instead of flaking out to go to my kid’s baseball game or school play, but later confess to being a big jerk and resolving to be much flakier from now on, while tear-jerking music plays softly in the background.
8. If my wife sleeps with someone else, I will begin a vigorous soul-searching session to figure out what I did to make her want to.
9. Listen unquestioningly to the words of self-appointed amateur psychologists who know nothing about me, as they describe my most intimate personal problems and what to do about them, especially if they’re half my age and good-looking.
10. Use incredibly lame passwords on my computer, and keep obvious visual clues to said passwords within line-of-sight.

Update:
The FARKLibs were generous enough to help tack on the following…
11. I promise to get a parking spot in front of whatever building I need to be in, regardless of time or day or how busy the area is.
12. I promise never to actually pay for anything.
13. I promise to talk to my children about my sexual antics as casually as my friends.
14. I will keep my gun holstered while checking to see if my nemesis is dead.
15. I will spend an inordinate amount of time explaining the happenings of the last two hours to my victim before I kill him.
16. I won’t say hello, when I begin telephone conversations, and I won’t say goodbye when they’re over.
17. I promise to leave the headlights on when I get out of car.
18. I promise to wear my tightest and most revealing clothes at all times, regardless of how practical or impractical they may be for the task at hand
19. I will also never wear the same outfit twice, unless it’s a uniform, in which case I will wear it nonstop
20. Also, should my clothing ever be torn or ripped, it will tear or rip in such a way as to bare nothing but my toned midriff, shoulders, or thighs.
21. If a friend goes missing, I will insist that everyone split up to look for them.
22. If in a gun fight, I will insist on a perfect headshot rather than targeting any body part in view. If there is a car between us, I will peek over the top rather than looking underneath and shooting my opponent in the ankle.
23. I promise to win the big game on some crazy, hare-brained, million-to-one play rather than skill.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

A Hero Sleeps II
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Millions upon millions upon millions of my fellow citizens want this war to be over. Like…yesterday.

Could it be they just don’t like the body bags pouring in? They have so much respect for human life they want it to stop, whatever the price may be?

Or…do they not like to be reminded of the distance between the true potential of human courage, and what they themselves show on a daily basis?

I leave it to the reader to decide.

Rest easy and God Bless, noble warrior. This is your world, the rest of us just live in it.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Snotty Indignation, and Truth
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Ruth Sheehan’s offense was deplorable in the extreme, easily worth fifty Don-Imus-Nappy-Hair-Ho repeats, perhaps more. She’s learned her lesson, and I think it’s a good lesson for the rest of us whether we’re similarly guilty, potentially guilty, or saintly innocent.

Her original article went like this:

Members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team: You know.

We know you know.

Whatever happened in the bathroom at the stripper party gone terribly terribly bad, you know who was involved. Every one of you does.

And one of you needs to come forward and tell the police.

Do not be afraid of retribution on the team. Do not be persuaded that somehow this “happened” to one or more “good guys.”

If what the strippers say is true — that one of them was raped, sodomized, beaten and strangled — the guys responsible are not “good.”

It turns out that snotty indignation, and verifiable truth, don’t have an awful lot to do with each other. Certainly, the sulphurous fumes of the former make a poor substitute for the latter. In the common-sense lobes of our brains, we all understand this. Our recurring sin is our failure to send a good amount of current through the synapses.

And so, a little over a year later, via Sister Toldjah we get to read about Sheehan’s mortified apology. Beware! There but for the grace of God…

Members of the men’s Duke lacrosse team: I am sorry.

Surely by now you know I am sorry. I am writing these words now, and in this form, as a bookend to 13 months of Duke lacrosse coverage, my role in which started with a March 27 column that began:

“Members of the men’s Duke lacrosse team: You know. We know you know.”

That was when Durham police and District Attorney Mike Nifong were describing a “wall of silence” among the men who attended the now-vaunted lacrosse party at 610 Buchanan Blvd. Nifong, now described by the state attorney general as a “rogue prosecutor,” was widely respected as solid, even understated.

Though wrong, my initial column was cheered by hundreds of readers.

Last weekend, our public editor, Ted Vaden, laid me low for that first column, and the second, which called for the firing of lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. According to Don Yeager, a former Sports Illustrated staffer who is writing a book about the case, Pressler blames me for his dismissal. I’m sorry he ended up coaching at a Division III school.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming…maybe it has something to do with puttin’ the hate on the rich people, in which case you’re just asking for more of the same sorry episode. Maybe it’s something else.

Either way, this obviously seems a good lesson to keep tucked away in your noggin.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Noonan V
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Once again, Peggy Noonan turns in something that scuttles straight toward the “Required Reading” folder:

We are scaring our children to death. Have you noticed this? And we’re doing it more and more.

Last week of course it was Cho Seung-hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The dead-faced man with the famous dead-shark eyes pointed his pistols and wielded his hammer on front pages and TV screens all over America.

What does it do to children to see that?

For 50 years in America, whenever the subject has turned to what our culture presents, the bright response has been, “You don’t like it? Change the channel.” But there is no other channel to change to, no safe place to click to. Our culture is national. The terrorizing of children is all over.

Click. Smug and menacing rappers.

Click. “This is Bauer. He’s got a nuke and he’s going to take out Los Angeles.”

Click. Rosie grabs her crotch. “Eat this.”

Click. “Every day 2,000 children are reported missing . . .”

Click. Don Imus’s face.

Click. “Eyewitnesses say the shooter then lined the students up . . .”
:
I would hate to be a child now.

I don’t agree with Noonan on everything, and I certainly don’t agree with it all here. I see it as part of a much larger arc. People like to scare kids nowadays — in the second half of the article, she nicely covers this — because people have noticed, when children are scared by something, they have a tendency to blow money and votes on whatever crap you’re selling when they grow up. It’s a chance to step in and perform the vital values-instilling assembly routines Mom and Dad are supposed to be performing. Scare a kid for a couple of seconds, and then let that kid go home and masticate his evening meal with Mom and Dad all week long. Make it a whole year. At the end of the year, if you ask the child what’s important to him, will he comment on something he learned at home, or on something he learned from you?

You. Of course. You scared the crap outta him.

And so our politicians, advocacy groups, 527s, and just about anyone else capable of grabbing a spot on the boob tube, have figured this out. Therein lies the motive — as for how long it’s been going on, with nobody saying boo about it, you’d have to look to the options available to people who set out to scare our kids. Those options are limitless, because our kids are easily scared. This is a problem that’s been going on even longer, and Noonan doesn’t even begin to cover it.

The expectancy our kids have out of their day-to-day security — the expectancy their parents have — is sky-freakin’-high. It was not ever thus.

Since feminism came on the scene, shamed everybody, demanded equal-pay-for-equal-work, got it, and then went searching for some other things to point out to shame everybody again…we have been raising babies. Every childhood should be less and less threatening. Except when a child isn’t scared by his childhood at home, he learns little…then he goes out into the big scary world, gets scared by something, and learns far more from whatever scared him than whatever he learned in his “harmlesss” home.

So you see, it’s very simple. When we set out to make sure our babums can go from the cradle to the graduation podium never having been jolted by anything, it’s like parking a solid-gold plated Lamborghini curbside with the keys in the ignition. Parents make sure their kids are never ever threatened, in substance or in form. As a direct consequence, parents, whether they realize it or not, teach their kids very little. Mannerisms, mostly. Things like how to answer the door with the cordless phone pressed to your ear; very little about right-and-wrong. And so it falls to the outside forces to teach the kids what is scary.

Which means, their values. It turns out there is very little different between what’s-right-and-wrong, and what-is-scary. In a secular society that becomes antagonistic toward the notion of any kind of Higher Power, this fusion between right-and-wrong and what-is-scary becomes even more solid.

As a parent, I’ve been guilty of some of Noonan’s complaints. But — and I’m sure Noonan would be receptive to this, and if she isn’t then nuts to her — this is different. I’m a parent. That’s my job. I tell my kid what I wish someone had told me, when I was a kid, about what is scary or what should be scary. I do this, or someone else does; and if someone else does, that is a usurpation.

And it’s been a uspurpation going on unopposed for generations. Look around, ask a grown-up what scares him or her. What comes out next, nine times out of ten, is a regurgitation of exactly what’s been coming out of the idiot box during the insipid morning “news” programs. The bitter irony is, post-WWII, we’ve been struggling to become a scare-free society. Here it is deep into the next century, and other than the things that scare us, we think about very little except Starbuck’s and iPods. In a sense, we live to be scared from cradle to grave. And, in a society that has been laboring endlessly to be more and more sensitive…nobody cares. Noonan, here, melds her own sentiments with mine, in a delicious parting-shot. The final sentence to her essay is priceless.

So what’re you still doing here on a blog nobody reads anyway? Go!

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Prudish?
Friday, April 27th, 2007

Shetty Just as the weathermen are forecasting our first spike of temperature of the year, I came across an interesting piece of news concerning Richard Gere. Now as most Americans are aware, every year when the weather starts to get warm, sometime between that first spike and Memorial Day, you can count on hearing someone, somewhere, indulge in a litte bit of — what else should I call it — putting the hate on good ol’ U.S. of A. They don’t admit to hating America…and of course they’ll snarl (yawn) peevishly at anyone having the big brass ones to say that’s what they’re doing. And they are not — repeat, not — saying anything bad about the country.

They are saying something bad about American culture. And mean to. Entirely.

The snark comes out as something like this…

“Of course, we here in America aren’t as mature about sex as some other countries.”

Or this…

“Of course, we’re a little bit prudish in America compared to the way they do things in other countries.”

Or…

“Of course, there are other countries that are a little more mature about sex and the naked body than we are here in America.”

And these comments are, in my opinion, very poorly thought-out. They are derived, first of all, from factual evidence that must remain undiscussed in order to leave the veneer of legitimacy in place on this idea being tossed around. This is necessary. To formulate an argument, and state for the record why it is you think the things you think — would, in the course of construction, fracture the argument under the force of its own weight.

It would look something like…My litmus test of a sexually mature society is whether that society allows women to talk around topless, and America doesn’t do this so it fails the test. To reconcile this with the available evidence would, at some point, necessitate some kind of study of our indecency laws state-to-state, which would pose all kinds of problems.

And then there’s the matter of the sensibility of the litmus test. Purely a matter of personal taste, of course. But I have difficulty seeing anyone standing behind it, and taking pride in doing so.

But anyway. These “other countries” are, like…although few ever say so out loud…countries in Europe. A few little mud-puddles sprinkled with nudist colonies. And France, which I’m told still considers it tasteful for a cabinet minister to — well, yeah, those who know him understand he has a mistress, but in polite society we don’t discuss it, and you’d better damn sure believe l’press is not allowed to mention it because the country is so damn “mature” about sex. Sexual maturity showing up as double-talk, in other words.

Here in the U.S., we’re juvenile because we figured out somewhere between Camelot and Watergate that this was silly. The President is dorking Marilyn Monroe, or else he isn’t. Not that Lewinskygate was the pinnacle of civilization and good judgment. But at LEAST we evolved to the point where, fer Chrissakes, something either happened or else it didn’t happen. At least people agreed that when something happened, and the Big Guy said it didn’t happen, he was lying. Our silly juvenile argument was over whether it was anybody’s business to begin with and whether the liar deserved a timeout. But our conservatives and liberals all deserve credit over l’Europeans, for treating a fact as a fact.

Meanwhile — recognizing that India is not in Europe — lookee what we have here.

A court issued arrest warrants for Hollywood actor Richard Gere and Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty on Thursday, saying their kiss at a public function “transgressed all limits of vulgarity,” media reports said.

Judge Dinesh Gupta issued the warrants in the northwestern city of Jaipur after a local citizen filed a complaint charging that the public display of affection offended local sensibilities, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.
:
Such cases against celebrities - often filed by publicity seekers - are common in conservative India. They add to a backlog of legal cases that has nearly crippled the country’s judicial system.

How would you define the characteristics of a prudish, overly-conservative and sexually-immature society? Wouldn’t they have something to do with filing case after case against people embracing in public the wrong way, to the point that the country’s judicial system is “crippled”?

I haven’t heard such a complaint against the U.S.A. or any state within it. Sure there are some brain-dead laws. But from what I’ve seen, before we get to the part about crippling the justice system, we first bump into the problem with laws everyone knows to be stupid and unenforceable — not being enforced. Which is a serious problem I think, but still a different one.

Gere, meanwhile, has apologized.

I just wanted all this bookmarked. Our “America is kind of prudish and immature” people, I can’t help noticing, like to brag about being “worldly.” It’s been my experience that if anyone dares disagree with them, they challenge the opposition with the “how many countries have you been to?” line.

And it just seems to me, if that’s what the discussion is all about, India ought to be worth a mention. They’re part of the world too. And this Gere thing, for reasons on which I’m not clear, and I wouldn’t mind being educated someday, continues to be big news. Because it seems they have “publicity seekers” over there who can’t stand watching a smooch.

Also, I’m gathering the sense that Shetty is in as big a peck of trouble as Gere over the deal, if not more. Even though when you watch the clip, it doesn’t look like she’s entirely into it. This injects at least the flavor of a human-rights issue into things. Among the Americans who view cultural sensibilities along the singular dimension, travelling from primitive-to-sophisticated along a spectrum, one step at a time from, the The Flintstones to the U.S.S. Enterprise, I think we would all have to agree: If a woman can be minding her own business — get groped — and end up facing legal consequences for not fighting the guy off hard enough, that place probably has a ways to go.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

How Friendly Do They Need To Be
Friday, April 27th, 2007

The subject just now was ugly liberal women and good-lookin’ conservative women. Which just naturally inspires a glance at Karol’s page, where we find a link to this:

Dean: Bar Media and Candidates Will Talk

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.

During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed. Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution.

“I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press,” Dean said.

The Democratic National Committee chairman criticized media coverage, arguing that networks such as CBS used to put content first and didn’t mind losing money for the prestige of delivering a quality news report. Dean said the days of Walter Cronkite are gone and the corporatization of the media has led to a desire to boost profits.

“The media has been reduced to info-tainment,” Dean said. “Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time.”

Now I imagine there is nothing ominous about this, if you’ve had your head stuck up your ass so far you can nibble on your own uvula. Those of us who’ve been paying attention, understand questions beginning with “How does it make you feel” are reserved for our donks, while questions along the lines of “How much does a gallon of milk cost?” are reserved for politicians who are not donks. It’s been that way for a very long time. Nobody even pretends to be able to explain why anymore. It’s just something we’ve slowly come to accept, and that’s the way it is.

So Howard.

How friendly does the media have to be to you, before you’ll let them back in again?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Ugly Liberal Women
Friday, April 27th, 2007

It’s been called to our attention that Wednesday’s post was an example of poor marketing in the blogosophere. We believe this is true, and furthermore that we commit this sin quite regularly, which is one of many reasons why we call ourselves The Blog That Nobody Reads. The subject of the post in question was Michelle Malkin making fun of the Democrats by pretending to cheer them on, with white flags instead of pom-poms. But from reading our comments, you wouldn’t have figured that out…you had to go to Malkin’s web site and watch the video clip. Only then would you see what’s going on…

MICHELLE MALKIN IN A CHEERLEADER OUTFIT
MICHELLE MALKIN IN A CHEERLEADER OUTFIT
MICHELLE MALKIN IN A CHEERLEADER OUTFIT
MICHELLE MALKIN IN A CHEERLEADER OUTFIT
MICHELLE MALKIN IN A CHEERLEADER OUTFIT

That, right up there, is how we would have played it up if we were true web-traffic-whores. Which we are somewhat — only to such an extent as we’ve developed as unhealthy an addiction to Sitemeter as any other blogger. Ooh, twenty hits in the last hour instead of ten. What did I do? From where did they come? It’s an intriguing question. But apart from a mouse-click or two of poking around, nothing is done about it. Life goes on.

When it comes to implementing all these tried-and-true techniques for boosting traffic, we rank below the folks who suck at it. We’re just not trying. Malkin herself is dancing around in a cheerleader costume, and we’re playing it up by analyzing the intellectual/sociopolitical merits of what she’s saying, and not even bothering to scrape any pictures. One can almost envision Malkin herself reviewing the finished product, wondering why we didn’t take the bait. Come on, I even had pigtails.

It’s in keeping with our mission. As we’ve pointed out before: Say things to get attention, pretty soon you’re saying things that make no sense, save for your objective of getting attention. And then you’re saying stupid crappy things like “there is no terrorirst threat” or “Bush went to Iraq to prove to his daddy he’s tough.” We’d rather stick to things we know to be true or genuinely believe to be true. That is the priority. Don’t be snookered — say things that, if you read them a year later, you won’t think to yourself “man, I really got fooled.” Let others troll for attention…and the web traffic will do whatever it will do.

Liberal Women But the timing was pretty good. We managed to link ourselves to a FARK thread in the moment as it was greenlit. This caused something of a spike. Maybe we’ll meet some interesting new folks because of that.

Anyway. We already have a new thought to ponder…although it is not completely an unblazed trail. FARK user juiceman_eyebrows would like to know…

Why are conservative women pundits so much prettier than than the Liberals? Seriously, what is it? Is it because they shave their legs? Wear deodorant? Keep the armpit hair to a minimum? Im just curious.

Well, I’d like to try to tackle this one. (Credit Six Meat Buffet for the picture.)

First of all, there are some exceptions. The left does have Alyssa Milano. But by-and-large, the trend does seem to hold true. Liberal women, now forty years into a movement of trying to find something unfair in society, and in the opportunities it offers them, so they can do some screeching…they don’t seem to want to be attractive.

At no time was this more evident than in the administration of Bill Clinton. Clinton was held up as the key to doors long bolted and sealed shut, imposing with a stuffy cobwebbed Victorian authority between strong, resourceful women and the opportunities that righfully should have been available to them. A messianic figure out to save women from oblivion in an unfair, patriarchal society that, but for him, would have relegated the best and brightest among our sisters and daughters to obscurity. And in the women came. Reno. Shalala. Albright. Bader-Ginsburg. And so on.

Did the message really stop at “you shouldn’t deny women opportunities just because they’re women?” It seems impossible to opine so. None among the gruesome foursome even remotely resemble the lovely Alyssa.

Oh yes, I understand — just as you shouldn’t promote someone just because he’s a man, you shouldn’t promote women just because they’re pretty. That argument would make a lot of sense — if two among the previously-named four resembled other-worldly creatures. But this was four-for-four. Women, by their nature, are beautiful. The average-looking woman looks a damn sight different from the average Clinton female appointee. No one’s ever bothered to explain this. Not to my knowledge.

So let’s face facts: Juiceman is on to something here. Something’s going on. You do not need to bribe me with booze and money to get me to sleep with Condoleeza Rice. Or Linda Chavez. Or Bo Derek or the lovely Michelle, or Peggy Noonan or Laura Ingraham. These women all have currency. Regarding their counterparts, especially the ones who achieved prominence in the Clinton cabinet — if you don’t mind, I think I’d rather just skip that part of the exercise.

Perhaps, among female persons who embraced the principles Clinton was trying to sell us, Janet Reno happened to be the best qualified to run the Justice Department. And given that, perhaps, Albright was best qualified to run the Department of State. But four-for-four, fugly-for-fugly?

Shenanigans, I say. There was another message there. There had to be. The Alyssa Milanos, you will note, remain safely confined to their Hollywood gigs. Our liberal politicians don’t even promote them to so much as spokeswoman-for-a-day in some fundraiser, political junket, million-whatever-march, or anything of the like. The pattern is clear: A genuinely gorgeous woman would cloud the message. The limelight is for…others.

Even in our movies, when we’re supposed to be appreciating women for being beautiful, our liberals still don’t think women should be appreciated for the gifts they naturally have. When the business at hand is to be “sexy,” their answer to it is Julia Roberts — a woman straight men don’t find sexy. Not in the way we find Ms. Milano sexy.

There seems to be something wrong with appealing to us, or being caught trying to. Clearly, there is some pipeline of support in the liberal community, and that pipeline is available to women who want to become famous — provided said women are not good-looking.

I Support Malkin And there’s something else going on, too. The subject-at-hand is Michelle Malkin: funny; smart; beautiful; enchanting; conservative; Asian. Just as I can stump even the most seasoned politics-watcher by asking “Quick! Who’s the sexiest female political appointee or spokeswoman for the left wing?” — I can achieve the same results by asking, in the same urgent manner, who is the most prominent female minority among the left wing. Now, why is that? Our liberals are supposed to be all about diversity. Opportunity for the under-privileged members of designated minority groups. The non-WASPy, non-caucasian, non-euro-centric. Stickin’ it to Whiitey, if you want to think of it that way. And, at times, that last one does seem to be the most accurate description of what they want done…

…so where is the spokesgal? I’ve noticed a favorite leitmotif of the left is that Malkin lacks talent — she’s not as smart as people give her credit for, and she’s just plain mean. Some of them say this as if in a concentrated effort to convince themselves. Others behave as if they’re already convinced. Okay, if there’s nothing extraordinary to Malkin, then where is the left-wing counterpart? One would have to expect, if Malkin is so extraordinary in her mediocrity, it shouldn’t take long to answer this at all. Just find any ol’ liberal Asian chick, and mission accomplished. Give her something to do, maybe debate the real Michelle somewhere. Should be easy. So why hasn’t it been done?

How come these female-persons whom The Left would wish could demand more of my attention, are not only butt-ugly, but so consistently white?

I’ve been repeatedly instructed to believe that Rush Limbaugh was “mean” when he said the purpose of feminism was to make sure ugly women can get dates. Just going on the evidence that has come to my attention over the years — it was mean. He should have said it was to make sure ugly white women can get dates.

Hot Women Not Wanted I’m sure that sets off lots of righteous indignation…but if anyone can get over it and catch their breath for a second or two, I’d really like an answer. It seems a fair question, and I have to think if it causes any offense in anyone, it can only do this until some quality thought is applied to it. The point of it is, after all, someone wants to get a message out and thus far, has only managed to get out a piece of it. How offensive can it be, to figure out there is more to be added? Our liberals have a beef with being too closely associated with women that straight men find pleasing, in face, body and mind. They’ve been encouraged to say a lot of things — some of it outlandish, some of it petty, almost all of it in some way hostile. On this matter, they’ve not yet fully opined. There’s something here that arouses shame in the shameless. PLEASE, liberals. Don’t keep your silence any further on my account. My curiosity is like an itch beneath a cast, with not one coathanger or chopstick in sight.

And there’s the matter of opportunity…still unaddressed. There are only so many ugly white women in the world. And I have to believe, if I were to start a company and staff it with ugly white liberal women with such remarkable consistency, with all the charter positions as well as the positions that become available from time to time, I’d eventually get busted for it. Because of some federal law that our liberals insisted we put on the books and keep in the books. To put it simply, I can’t do as a private citizen what these left-wing power brokers appear to have done for quite a long time with our taxpayer-supported advocacy positions and our positions of public trust. With nary a soul, outside of the conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, batting an eyelash about it.

No, I run a company with my own money…a liberal bystander who can’t show me two nickels he has to lose, in any decision I make, detects a lack of “diversity” and he can bring the whole operation to a screeching halt. Said lack of diversity is supposed to be compelling evidence of something awful and ugly. Well, I’ve noticed the same thing in the things our liberals like to do. I’m pretty far from the first guy to notice it. And hey, gorgeous women have to eat too.

So is it really all about equal opportunity?

Or is being liberal all about exchanging one form of prejudice, for a different one? It is possible for a woman to be charming, sexy and smart. I know this for a fact. Our liberals appear to be convinced it is not so.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

L-O-S-E-R
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

Well done, Michelle. The raw cheerleading talent…well, it could use some work. But you’ve captured what’s going on. Precisely.

Just take three steps back and look at the BIG picture. Socialism and eugenics…our liberals are in favor of taking control of matters that deal with those two. Nothing else. That is what stays consistent across issue after issue. Take charge of what the little people are allowed to make, take charge of what the little people are allowed to be. That’s it.

On all other issues the name of the left-wing game is to be passive. Passive, passive, passive…and there’s no limit to how evil you are if you want someone to take control of something. Someone breaks into your house. Someone steals your car. Someone runs around killing little kids. Radical Islamic whacko people want to kill us. Just toss around bromides and platitudes, sit back and let things happen.

Neutralizing bad guys? FUHGEDDABOWDIT. Whether it’s a terrorist blowing up a plane or a compulsive child-murderer who belongs on death row, there’s something about putting a bad guy down that makes liberals cringe. Nothing’s worth defending; nothing is worth it. The consistency is just amazing.

And they say the Republicans have absolutely nothing going for them in ‘08. If that’s true under present circumstances, some Republican campaign advisors need to find another line of work. Defeat the left wing? Just force it to admit what it is. It’s the “Nothing Worth Defending” wing.

Credit TheSaloon.Net for the picture.

Update: It’s necessary to save this link from Monday and you’ll see why when you peek. To bottom-line it, Harry Reid does have a defense for his comment about the war being lost. He says his statement is fair because…hope you’re sitting down…he’s “stick[ing] with General Petreaus.” The war “cannot be won militarily,” Reid knows this because Petreaus said it. Yeah. Gen. Petreaus and Harry Reid are on one side of this thing, and President Bush is on the other side…all alone, I guess.

Just goes to show. When a donk tells you someone said something, the last thing the donk wants you to do is check things out. I notice that’s been pretty consistent, too.

Funny that Reid would call Bush a liar, when Reid himself is mischaracterizing Gen. Petraeus’ comments about military victory in Iraq so egregiously that it rises to the level of a despicable lie. Here’s a statement from General Petraeus that more accurately characterizes his position on Iraq (given during a US Armed Services Committee hearing on 1/23/2007):

It is, however, exceedingly difficult for the Iraqi government to come to grips with the toughest issues it must resolve while survival is the primary concern of so many in Iraq’s capital. For this reason, military action to improve security, while not wholly sufficient to solve Iraq’s problems, is certainly necessary. And that is why additional U.S. and Iraqi forces are moving to Baghdad.

And then there’s this exchange between Gen. Petraeus and Senator McCain during the same hearing:

SEN. MCCAIN: “Suppose we send you over to your new job, General, only we tell you that you can’t have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?”

GEN. PETRAEUS: “No, sir.”

Lying, in the same breath as calling others liars. Characterizing a war as having been lost when it has been anything but. Caught red-handed.

Just disgusting.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

The Governor’s Press Release
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

Regarding the Governor of Oregon living on $3 per person per day for food for a week, to show us how incredibly in touch he is with those lowly poor people, here is his press release:

“I challenge all Oregonians to experience first-hand what thousands of Oregon families go through everyday,” said Governor Kulongoski. “Budgeting just $1 a meal each day for food, and trying to make that food nutritious, is a difficult task that sadly is a reality for too many Oregonians and their families.”

Thing I Know #82. You need to be careful when helping desperate people, because there’s a fine line between finding out what it is they need, and borrowing some of the habits they had just before they got desperate.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

All About Food Stamps
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

Did you know half of all food stamp recipients have been receiving the aid continuously for 8½ years or more?

There is a common misperception that the Food Stamp program provides mainly temporary, short term assistance. This is untrue. The majority of Food Stamp recipients at any given point in time are or will be long term dependents. The overwhelming majority of Food Stamp spending is received by individuals who have been or will be participants in the program for multiple years or even decades.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Neely’s Wet BBQ Ribs
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

Ming The Merciless (not his real name) tipped me off to Neely’s barbeque sauce, of which I had not heard before just now. Found this recipe on the web, which I’d like to try sometime.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Yet More Quiz Results
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

I must have taken dozens of these over the years. One of my projects is to gather all the results and put them into a WordPress page. I haven’t even figured out how to get started on that just yet…but anyway…

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

On the Man CodeMonday, April 30th, 2007

What I Learned From Casino RoyaleMonday, April 30th, 2007

As a Movie CharacterSunday, April 29th, 2007

A Hero Sleeps IISaturday, April 28th, 2007

Snotty Indignation, and TruthSaturday, April 28th, 2007

Noonan VSaturday, April 28th, 2007

Prudish?Friday, April 27th, 2007

How Friendly Do They Need To BeFriday, April 27th, 2007

Ugly Liberal WomenFriday, April 27th, 2007

L-O-S-E-RWednesday, April 25th, 2007

The Governor’s Press ReleaseTuesday, April 24th, 2007

All About Food StampsTuesday, April 24th, 2007

Neely’s Wet BBQ RibsTuesday, April 24th, 2007

Yet More Quiz ResultsTuesday, April 24th, 2007

On the Man Code
Monday, April 30th, 2007

What I Learned From Casino Royale
Monday, April 30th, 2007

As a Movie Character
Sunday, April 29th, 2007

A Hero Sleeps II
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Snotty Indignation, and Truth
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Noonan V
Saturday, April 28th, 2007

Prudish?
Friday, April 27th, 2007

How Friendly Do They Need To Be
Friday, April 27th, 2007

Ugly Liberal Women
Friday, April 27th, 2007

L-O-S-E-R
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

The Governor’s Press Release
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

All About Food Stamps
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

Neely’s Wet BBQ Ribs
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

Yet More Quiz Results
Tuesday, April 24th, 2007