Lest you think I exaggerate

I repeat… why do sports editors insist on foisting this ignorant self-centered Chick Split on us? Perhaps you recall what I said last time about the lunacy of assigning women with no interest in sports to write about them for a sports page read primarily by men:

I’m a 26-year-old woman born in upstate New York, raised in bucolic Connecticut suburbs and educated by friars in brown robes at a small college in the Berkshires. I listen to public radio. I drink nonfat lattes while thumbing through the L.A. Times in black, plastic-framed reading glasses. I display a Human Rights Campaign bumper sticker on my car. I had a vegetarian phase.

I hate to pigeonhole myself, but I’m not supposed to like the Ultimate Fighting Championship. I’m supposed to think it’s barbarically primal, and offensive, and artless.

But you met me at a very strange time in my life.

After my first trip to Las Vegas, my attitude is different. I was completely riveted by UFC 62.

Short Translation: “ohmigod, you would totally think that i’m, like, so above that icky boy stuff, but, like, i actually liked it! can you believe it?

Subtext: “I’m a college-educated career woman and feminist with all of the approved female sensitivities pursuing a media career, so please cut me some slack and understand that I’m being ironic when I pretend to like this grotesque exhibition of neanderthalic male violence to which my patriarchist editor sent me only in order to keep my job. Sweet goddess, if they don’t put me on camera within six months, I swear by Gaia’s gargantuan vulva that I’m sending another application to the New York Times Style Section.”

Seriously, ESPN couldn’t find a single writer anywhere in the country who actually follows UFC? I don’t follow it at all, and even I watched the first four.

Illusions and the shattering thereof

Catkiller! comments asthe Original Cyberpunk explains a principle of union labor:

I worked for the parks commission for two summers chalking and raking baseball fields and keepign stats. I always had a deadline–game time. The cool thing was doing girls’ softball twice a week. Since I did the write-ups for the paper, there was always a group of desperate girls around me after games.

So, who wants to break it to him?

Why does this not surprise me

Another from the “Women are fascists” department:

The confrontation at Hewlett-Packard started innocently enough. Last January, the online technology site CNET published an article about the long-term strategy at HP, the company ranked No. 11 in the Fortune 500. While the piece was upbeat, it quoted an anonymous HP source and contained information that only could have come from a director. HP’s chairwoman, Patricia Dunn, told another director she wanted to know who it was; she was fed up with ongoing leaks to the media going back to CEO Carly Fiorina’s tumultuous tenure that ended in early 2005. According to an internal HP e-mail, Dunn then took the extraordinary step of authorizing a team of independent electronic-security experts to spy on the January 2006 communications of the other 10 directors—not the records of calls (or e-mails) from HP itself, but the records of phone calls made from personal accounts. That meant calls from the directors’ home and their private cell phones.

When feminists tell everyone that the business world needs more female executives because they will do things differently than their male counterparts, it would be helpful if they would explain precisely what they mean by that.

Good riddance

Ann Coulter’s support of Tony Blair is the one position she has ever taken that I cannot at least somewhat defend. Go, and take Cool Brittania and George W. Bush with you:

“Tony Blair’s administration has been dealt what may turn out to be a fatal blow by the resignation of seven members of his Government.Tom Watson, the under-secretary of state for defence, wrote to Mr Blair this morning telling him that it was no longer in the interests of Labour or of the country for him to remain Prime Minister. This afternoon six parliamentary private secretaries – MPs on the lowest rung of the Government ladder – also handed in their resignations.”

I hope this will be Blair’s political death knell. He combined the worst traits of Bill Clinton with those of George W. Bush. Not only did he destroy the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, but he put Britain well on the road to becoming the EU province formerly known as Britain. May 31, 2007 is not soon eough to get rid of the man.

The pointless endeavor

The NROniks are all but wetting themselves:

President Bush’s speech is a landmark event. As John says, the president’s pledge not to allow a nuclear Iran is a major policy declaration that could well result in a clash before long. My piece today, “Kingdom Come,” gives an inkling of why a president, faced with the implications of a nuclear Iran, might feel that he has no choice but to act. But the horror of it is, the points I cover only scratch the surface of the many frightening implications of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

I find it hard to take the bed-wetting over nuclear proliferation very seriously. What no one seems to grasp is that it is no more possible to prevent nuclear proliferation than it was to prevent hauberk proliferation during Charlemagne’s reign or rifle proliferation in the 18th century. Yes, there will likely be a hideous event or two, and yes, it’s more than likely that the reigning world power which believes it has a right to station troops in dozens of countries and forcibly occupy any country it likes will be the primary target.

But none of this changes the fact that technological proliferation is inevitable. If it were possible for the United States to prevent other governments from acquiring them, presumably the Russians, the Chinese and the Indians would not have them. Furthermore, logic strongly suggests that Iran does not want nukes in order to set off a few in Jerusalem or Washington, if they did they would have already acquired them from the Soviet Union, North Korea, Pakistan or South Africa and done so. They want them for the same reason everyone else does, to bring to an end the Lex Americana, which is applied at the whim of the President to any non-nuclear power. I think it would be very, very difficult to dispute the assertion that the Iranian regime is far more sane than its North Korean counterpart.

One need not be sympathetic towards the Iranian theocracy to recognize either of these two verities. And before anyone starts in on the “insanity” of the Iranian president, I would remind him of two things. First, the president serves at the pleasure of Ali Khamenei, who controls the armed forces. Even if he is crazy, which I seriously doubt, he isn’t in charge. Second, given that the international public enemy number one is always proclaimed to be crazy, one should harbor a certain amount of skepticism towards distant psychological diagnosis by the media. After all, there’s no shortage of Americans who claim that President Bush is also an insane religious nut who hopes to immanentize the eschaton by bringing about Armageddon.

If you want to play bully, (or if you prefer, world superpower), then don’t be surprised when people attack you at every opportunity. The Romans understood this. Americans don’t.