Equalitarian injustice

This is the first among an ESPN sportswriter’s recommendations for Augusta’s new chairman:

Women Members
We are a private club, but we are also a public golfing treasure. Outgoing chairman Hootie Johnson, and some of our more medieval members, never have fully understood that relationship. Hootie saw small picture (Martha Burk and bayonets) instead of big picture (it’s the right thing to do). So how about we join the 21st century and extend membership invitations to at least two women?

Dear Mr. Wojciechowski,

I fail to understand your crusade against men being able to belong to private clubs, but I certainly await with interest your forthcoming excoriation of women’s clubs such as Curves, as well as blatantly sexist women’s sporting organizations like the LPGA. I would encourage you to expand your anti-sexist campaign to the federal prison system, which also exhibits open sexism by refusing to practice gender equality in its cell assignments.

As was well established in Brown vs Board of Education, separate is not equal. I hope you will soon address this terrible injustice in our society.

Regards,
Vox

Three Monkey math

Podhoretz tries the mathematically ignorant con on The Corner:

Derb, You Need… [John Podhoretz]

…to read Can She Be Stopped?, a book that explains why the third-party temptation for people on the Right is nothing less than a vote for the Left.

Yes, because to these Republican geniuses, 1+0=2. No wonder they can’t balance the budget. Perhaps I should explain for those of you who are too slow to grasp basic arithmetic.

Take three individuals, one Democrat, one Republican, and one Libertarian. The Democrat votes Democrat. The Republican votes Republican. Now, here comes the part that is too hard for the political pundit.

If the Libertarian votes Libertarian, how many votes have the Democrats received?

If you answered two, you just might be a Three Monkey Republican.

Update – Unsurprisingly, the faux conservative is pushing Giuliani as the Lizard Queen Killer. Yeah, I seem to recall that was going to be the strategy to keep her out of the Senate too. The amazing thing is how Podhoretz even attempts to explain away Murdoch’s fundraiser for Hillary as an attempt to keep her in the Senate instead of the White House. It’s hard to believe how much contempt this man has for his readers! One NROnik, Tim Graham, responds thusly:

J-Pod, I heard your third-party spiel on Hannity yesterday (nice), but you’re recommending running Rudy Giuliani. How is that not a vote for the left? Hey, let’s run a pro-gay, pro-abortion, liberal Republican with a tabloid-disaster marital record. Cut out his mayoral record on crime and his tough stand on terror, and he IS Hillary. (Well, actually he’s Bill on the cheating, but you know what I mean.) If you don’t want a third party in the race, don’t push for Rudy. Even a “nomination conversion” on social issues isn’t going to save him.

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we may only see a Hillary win, but a Hillary landslide. Republicans might as well put up an official “no conservatives allowed” sign as nominate that self-promoting shyster.

The popular people

This is John Hawkins from Right Wing News. On Thursday of this week, I am going to be putting up an article entitled, “Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite Columnists”. This is a once a year poll and you can sort of think of it as the “People’s Choice Awards” for conservative columnists.

Here was my list. And lest the usual suspects think I’m angling for votes here, time is up and it’s an invite-only vote anyhow. I actually forgot to put two of these on my ballot, but no matter, my choices tend to fair poorly anyhow, except for Coulter, Steyn and Goldberg. I do, however, expect Mike Adams to do well.

1. Ann Coulter
2. John Derbyshire
3. Pat Buchanan
4. Mark Steyn
5. Jonah Goldberg
6. Mike Adams
7. Joseph Farah
8. Thomas Sowell
9. Jay Nordlinger
10. Victor Davis Hanson
11. Ilana Mercer

This doesn’t mean that I necessarily agree with the columnist, only that I like something about their perspective or writing style. For example, I think Hanson regularly draws incorrect conclusions from history, but I like how he at least attempts to seek a historical perspective, unlike almost every other political pundit except Buchanan. I think people would be shocked if they truly grasped the vast difference in historical knowledge between a Hanson or Buchanan and the Malkin/Shapiro sort.

And while I’m not a fan of Farah’s occasional tendency towards histrionics, his consistency is impressive considering that he writes a column every day. If I had to do that, I can’t even imagine how bizarre and meandering my column would become.