Subscribe via RSS Feed

Who Will Protect the Poor Boys?

Michael Graham at the Boston Herald has his panties in a bunch over Harvard’s decision to create a women-only hour in the school’s gym, so that Muslim women can exercise comfortably and in keeping with the rules of modesty imposed by Sharia. He calls discrimination against those poor Harvard boys who have been sidelined by the school’s decision. Woe is them!

Now, here’s the thing. I’ll admit my ambivalence (to put it mildly) about religious edicts (of ANY faith) that require women’s “modesty” while usually allowing men to traipse all over town. But, aside from the fact that we live in a pluralistic society that should accommodate many faiths, using this as an excuse to decry, oh, everything Harvard has ever done to encourage dialogue with Muslim students and world leaders is just bull.

I’m told by a Boston-native that the Herald is beantown’s version of the NY Post. Graham certainly proved it today.

Share with Sociable

Who Would Win in a Fight?

[ 39 ] March 6, 2008 |

Barney Miller vs. Cedric Daniels?

Share with Sociable

The Five Universal Commandments of Writing About Women

[ 8 ] March 6, 2008 |

Dahlia Lithwick infers them:

1. It’s not sexism if it’s women trashing women.

2. Writing by women about women need not be held to the same critical or analytical standards as writing by men because—I suppose—we really are as stupid as Allen suggests.

3. No need for originality in pieces by women about women. Oprah, Celine, and Grey’s Anatomy never get old. Good times.

4. When all else fails, say the piece was meant to be funny. Then you can say that anyone who didn’t like it has no sense of humor.

5. Laugh all the way to the bank.

This is very smart, so maybe John Pomfret will mistake her for a man and give her an op-ed job with an assignment to write about a topic besides why Women Are Teh Stupid. (Or, as I’m sure she’d prefer, the Times will give her Greenhouse’s job when it comes open, but I’d miss the snark.)

Share with Sociable

Stratcom Offers a Deal

[ 11 ] March 6, 2008 |

Via Armchair Generalist, STRATCOM Chief General Kevin Chilton is asking Congress to make a deal:

But as U.S. officials look to the future, Chilton said, “What we need is a modernized nuclear weapon to go with our modernized delivery platforms that we’ve worked on and are working on, and a responsive infrastructure, one that can produce weapons.

“If we do that right … you have an opportunity to lower what is referred to commonly as the hedge inventory, the backup inventory,” said Chilton, who is due to retire this summer.

The offer here is that, in return for backing the Reliable Replacement Warhead program (which is intended to produce a new generation of nuclear weapons), nuclear force levels will be substantially cut. The nugget of logic behind the deal is the argument that older weapons are less reliable, and that as such would need them in greater numbers than newer weapons.

And this, of course, is garbage. We do not now and have never needed every single nuclear weapon we launch to function properly; we have so many more than we need to do whatever job we could ever conceivably want to do. No plausible study suggests that our existing nuclear weapons are decaying at anything like the rate they would need to in order to threaten the robustness of the deterrent. More importantly, no enemy is ever going to make this analysis:

CRAZY FOREIGN DICTATOR: How many nuclear weapons will the Americans launch at us if we destroy New York?

LACKEY TO CRAZY FOREIGN DICTATOR: Dozens, sir. But perhaps half of those won’t work, which means that we will only suffer half of… well, dozens of nuclear explosions.

CRAZY FOREIGN DICTATOR: Ha ha ha. The American fools. If only they had funded RRW back when they had the chance. The Democratic Party truly is our best friend. Launch our attack!

It comes down to this; STRATCOM wants new toys, and the major nuclear labs want new jobs. It’s unclear to me why we should pay for either of those things.

Cross-posted to TAPPED.

Share with Sociable

They’re Being Run By A Committee Consisting of Cam Bonifay, Michael Brown, and Katherine Harris

[ 0 ] March 6, 2008 |

That explains why there’s nothing resembling a vote count in the Texas caucuses. I believe that the operative words are “in” and “ept.”

Share with Sociable

The Right Call

[ 56 ] March 6, 2008 |

Howard Dean says that delegates will not be seated based on the Michigan and Florida straw polls, but would be willing to sanction delegates based on an actual election agreed to by both campaigns. This is obviously the correct decision. We’ll see if the state parties choose to enfranchise their voters or not.

Share with Sociable

Allen: "I Was Serious!"

[ 54 ] March 5, 2008 |

You may recall John Pomfret claiming that the embarrassing Charlotte Allen editorial he published was just “tongue-in-cheek.” (Exactly what the column was satirizing Pomfret left obscure.) Alas, Allen herself doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo:

Washington: When I read this, I immediately thought it was written ironically. Were you surprised that so many people took it literally?

Charlotte Allen: I wouldn’t quite use the word “ironic,” but yes, I meant to be funny but with a serious point–that women want to be taken seriously but quite often don’t act serious. Also, that women and men really are different.

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.


Memphis, Tenn.: Ms. Allen, I am confused about The Post editors’ “it was satire, stupid” defense of your article. Could you explain why (or how) you thought the reader could have (or should have) picked up on the satirical tone? I recognize that this question may provoke a response not unlike the Supreme Court’s “I know it when I see it” approach to obscenity, but I have read a lot of satire, and I just don’t see it in your article. Perhaps you could give me a quick and dirty review of my eighth-grade English class?

Charlotte Allen: I’m not sure whether I’d characterize the piece as satire, but I’d certainly characterize it as humor: my poking fun at the dumb things my sex does.

So Allen really does think that women are dumb, largely unqualified for positions of responsibility, etc. — which is entirely unsurprising — and Pomfret feels that it’s reasonable to “proactively” air such views in his op-ed page. Good to know. I can’t say I’m looking forward to the inevitable satirical and provocative debate between Charles Murray and Allen about whether women or African-Americans are dumber.

Share with Sociable

Texas May Have Caucuses…

[ 0 ] March 5, 2008 |

…But still no dildos.

Remember a couple weeks ago when the traditionally conservative 5th circuit held that Texas’s ban on sex toys was unconstitutional?

Well, apparently the Texas AG is none too happy about Texas residents, um, getting happy, so he has petitioned the 5th Circuit to rehear the case en banc (which means it will be heard by all the judges of the court, rather than just a panel of three). In a line right out of the GOP “gay marriage will mean the end of the world” playbook, the AG claims that if the court’s decision is permitted to stand, it may “invite … challenges to previously-uncontroversial criminal prohibitions” on sexual practices such as “consensual adult incest or bigamy”

Because apparently that’s what’s happened in every other state where we allow people to use sex toys in peace (for the record, that would be 46 of them).

Share with Sociable

Who Would Win in a Fight?

[ 18 ] March 5, 2008 |

Bubbles vs. Renton?

Share with Sociable

The Long Primary

[ 26 ] March 5, 2008 |

Kevin Drum, citing 1968, says that Democrat’s needn’t panic. I don’t really buy the historical analogy for a reason that can be summed up in two words: George Wallace. Without him in the race to split the white supremacist vote that went for Goldwater in 1964, Nixon almost certainly wins in a massive landslide. For this reason, I don’t think that this is a very encouraging precedent. On his overall argument, however, I agree with him at least to a point. I don’t think that the extension of the campaign per se is a big deal at all. Were Obama to win Pennsylvania and end the race, for example, I don’t think that the extra month of campaigning would hurt him much as a candidate, and as Kevin says depriving McCain of oxygen may even be a net positive.

The bigger problem is a scenario (which, given that Clinton has to be considered a strong favorite in Pennsylvania, has a substantial likelihood) where Obama has a lead of pledged delegates in the high double or low triple digits but is coming off some high-profile losses in state popular votes. Serious attempts by Clinton to seat delegates based on the results of Michigan and Florida straw polls (although not necessarily a re-vote agreed to by both campaigns and the DNC), for example, would produce very serious conflict. And if Clinton were put over the top by superdelegates (which I continue to think is highly unlikely) she would be severely weakened as a general election candidate. Is it possible that the Democrats could win after a protracted convention battle? Sure. But it would turn an election in which the Democratic candidate has considerable structural advantages into a much dicier proposition. I don’t think that this is something to be sanguine about.

But that’s life; politics is messy. Even having two very strong potential candidates has its downside. It’s especially ironic that a process re-designed to produce a quick victory and party unity has led to the opposite, but unintended consequences are endemic to political institutions. Hopefully this won’t put John McCain in the White House.

Share with Sociable

Alan Keyes Watch

[ 8 ] March 5, 2008 |

Althoug Uncommitted doubled him up, Alan Keyes prevailed in a tight race with Duncan Hunter last night and probably dealt a knock-out blow to Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. He spent pretty much the last month campaigning throughout Texas, and the effort clearly bore fruit.

Also, he appears to have totally thrashed Bud Cort.

This fellow is keeping hope alive today. When the Lord realizes that each name listed above Keyes’ is actually the illegitimate child of Satan, He will probably atomize them all.

As Dr. Keyes advises, “if you can’t see the change, be the change.”

On to St. Paul!

Share with Sociable

They Write Letters

[ 6 ] March 5, 2008 |

Katha Pollitt on John Pomfret’s Misogyny Clearinghouse:

Linda Hirshman ["For Hillary's Campaign, It's Been a Class Struggle," Outlook, March 2] explains that women, including me, who support Sen. Barack Obama are “fickle,” “elites” who don’t care about low-income women, have possibly been seduced by the wealthy and attractive Barack and Michelle, know (like all women) less about politics than the men of our social class, and being, like all women, more averse to political conflict than men, may just have been browbeaten by those mean, mean “Obamabots.” It couldn’t possibly be that we have read up on the issues, watched the debates, evaluated the campaigns and made complicated judgments that happen to come out differently from Ms. Hirschman’s.

Fortunately, Charlotte Allen boils it all down for the fickle, Obama-crushing, Manolo-coveting, ignorant, conflict-averse, push-aroundable female voter: “Women Aren’t Very Bright.” Thanks for clearing that up!

I’m looking forward to further installments, like “Female Suffrage: A Big Mistake” and “Why Education is Wasted on Women.” Followed by yet another round of, “Why Don’t Women Read The Washington Post?”

[Via Somerby.]

Share with Sociable