Category: Uncategorized

Steelreso takes the high road:

Nobody who has been married any length of time and wants to remain married should follow this advice. It is a recipe for total misery. Graciously treat her as the weaker vessel and take the high road, forego retaliation. A video replay would fail to convince the woman of her lack of logic. Ditto verbal jousts. You will only succeed in promoting your own sexual abstinence.

If men want to suffer nobly in silence, they are welcome to do so. I’ll pass, seeing as every married man I know who lives that way is miserable. The Bible is all about confrontation and individual responsibility, not forgoing either. We are to forgive as God forgives us, which is as a reaction to a confession or apology, not proactively, much less preemptively. As for promoting your own sexual abstinence, apparently Steelreso missed Space Bunny’s assertion of who it is that gets more action. Hint- it isn’t the meek.

Human beings will always gravitate towards the easier path. If you make it easier and more pleasant for a woman (or, for that matter, a man) to behave like a decent, civilized human being than a self-centered loose cannon, you seriously increase the odds that they will behave in the desired way. If they are so perverse that this doesn’t work, you’re screwed no matter what you do.

One would think that in the name of artistic freedom, the creative community would take a stand against filmmakers being sent into hiding à la Salman Rushdie, or left bleeding in the street. Yet we’ve heard nary a peep from Hollywood about the van Gogh slaying. Indeed Hollywood has long walked on eggshells regarding the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. The film version of Tom Clancy’s “The Sum of All Fears” changed Palestinian terrorists to neo-Nazis out of a desire to avoid offending Arabs or Muslims. The war on terror is a Tinsel Town taboo, even though a Hollywood Reporter poll showed that roughly two-thirds of filmgoers surveyed would pay to see a film on the topic.

In a recent conversation with a struggling liberal screenwriter, I brought up the Clancy film as an example of Hollywood shying away from what really affects filmgoers–namely, the al Qaeda threat vs. the neo-Nazi threat. He vehemently defended the script switch. “It’s an easy target,” he said of Arab terrorism, repeating this like a parrot, then adding, “It’s a cheap shot.” How many American moviegoers would think that scripting Arab terrorists as the enemy in a fiction film is a “cheap shot”? In fact, it’s realism; it’s what touches lives world-wide. It’s this disconnect with filmgoers that has left the Hollywood box office bleeding by the side of the road.

Keep in mind, this is the same crowd that insists on the artistic purity of portraying the “realism” of the inner city by showing enough murders per minute to wipe out Los Angeles in five years. All you have to know about Hollywood is that its denizens believe all blacks are gangsters and that there’s no such thing as an Arab terrorist… it’s the neo-Nazis that are the real danger!

(I’ve been at a European soccer game where the real Neos were showing out. They were a bunch of 13-16 year-olds with arms the size of my finger, it’s about as genuinely dangerous as your average white suburban Eminem fan is a gangster.)

If Christians ever got one-one hundredth as concerned about insults to their religion as Muslims are about theirs, you’d never see a priest or Protestant bad guy out of Hollywood again.

John Podhoretz writes in NRO’s Corner:

Oliver Stone’s Alexander, which opens today, isn’t just bad. It’s Springtime for Hitler bad. I haven’t guffawed this hard since I saw Airplane for the first time 24 years ago. This is one of the colossal catastrophes of all time. At a screening on Monday night, during the death scene of Alexander’s lover Hephaiston, people were screaming with laughter as Alexander made a big speech while, behind him in soft focus, Hephaiston went into a conniption fit and croaked. Plus, Angelina Jolie plays Alexander’s mother like she was Natasha from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. It’s almost worth seeing, but don’t, because if you’re like me and want to see Oliver Stone utterly destroyed for his artistic and political crimes, you will make sure not to contribute to the box-office coffers of what is sure to go down in the annals of moviedom as Heaven’s Gate with rampaging evil elephants (no, I’m not kidding).

How exactly do you go about shredding these wenches? I mean, do you just point out the behavior and say it’s annoying? Or do you really rip into them, calling them out and lacing the invective with obscenities?

My favorite method is to simply describe exactly what they’re doing in a slightly disbelieving tone of voice, and ask a few pertinent questions. For example, if a woman starts talking about how her husband can’t change the diapers, I might ask her to define precisely how incompetent she is saying he is, to confirm that he literally has no idea how to scoop out the detritus, swab off the child’s behind, fold over the diaper and attach the two sticky tabs, and to explain to me which step in the process is beyond him. I might then ask if she really believes that a man who graduated with honors from a top university with a degree in computer science is truly baffled by this exercise in radical complexity. If I’m feeling particularly cruel, I might start asking her questions about her husband’s work and expose her almost total ignorance of what he actually does – not to mention the very low probability that she could perform any such tasks herself.

This is all said with a smile and in a friendly tone of voice. Judging by the helpless fury it provokes, it’s far more effective than any overt insult could be, as it deprives the woman of the high road escape. The key is that they can’t stand to get called on what they’re doing, simply pointing that out to everyone usually suffices to shut it down.

In general, the Socratic method is easily the most effective way to demolish someone in public. There’s nothing you can ever say about someone that will tear them down as effectively as their own words will. If you can lose them with your vocabulary, so much the better, as women’s verbal skill often leads them to believe that they are more intelligent than they are so they find this further humiliating.

For example, I once said someone’s argument had reached its nadir, and the woman didn’t know what “nadir” meant. She said something about how I might use a lot of big words, but… at which point I cut in and pointed out that if she thought a word with five letters and two syllables was big, perhaps she would be more comfortable arguing with elementary school children. Everyone started laughing and she ran away crying.

This is why you don’t want to mess with the White Buffalo in public. He’s adept at making people laugh, and he’ll soon have them laughing at you.

JW has gender on his mind:

I’ve very much enjoyed your articles on the differences between the sexes. People have to willfully misread what you write to believe you have contempt for women, because you clearly do not. You are one of the few men who seem to have the articulation to clearly defend men against undue criticism, and fire back appropriately to the feminists practicing the very sexism that they claim to be opposing.

But I would be interested if you could write some time about bullying. We would all agree that a man who physically bullies a woman is scum–just because he is bigger and can do more damage doesn’t give him the right to physically crush any woman who disagrees with him. Such men are met with the appropriate contempt. The flip side. Though it is not as evil to be mouthy as it is to physically harm another, I still find it unacceptable that many women verbally abuse men, and receive little contempt for it. If it is true that you don’t have the right to physically bully someone just becauseyou gifted with more power, should it not also be true that you should not verbally bully someone just because you are gifted with more verbal skill?

There is another hot button right there: I would get bashed for making “generalizations” by some feminists. In reality that is just a cop out, instead of making intellectual arguments they accuse those who disagree as being bigots. In my circle of acquaintances, and probably with yours, there are a few men that do not treat their women well. But the majority of the time, in a group setting, it is the women who disrespect their men. Every 10-15 minutes two things happen: a woman asks a favor of their man, and a woman disses her man (by insulting him, mocking him, scoffing at him, or making him the brunt of a joke). These women regularly say things to or about their man, publicly, that they would be irate about if he said the same. The ironic thing is that most of these women are otherwise decent people, but no one seems to take offense to their verbal snarls at their men–but if a man says something disrespectful there is a rallying call to support the woman.

There are, I think, two mitigating factors that men should keep in mind when considering women’s irritating idiosyncracies. First, women live in a constant state of low-level fear, not necessarily of the men in their lives, but of Man in general. Throughout time, men have been the predators and they have been both prize and prey. If you think about how you feel walking through a bad part of town at night, that’s a reasonable approximation of how they feel all the time.

This fosters a herd mentality. When one woman feels threatened for any reason, the rest rush to circle and present horns, perceiving an attack on one as an attack on all since they have been taught that the personal is political. Amusingly, some feminists confuse this herd mentality with a pack mentality, which explains their confusion when most women won’t join them in going on the misandric attack. This is why highly maleducated young women are always going on and on about what strong women they are and how men fear them, with about as much success as a cow running around baring its teeth and trying to eat meat.

The weak can always get away with behavior that the strong cannot. The man who meekly accedes to his wife’s silly public demands is complicit in his own subjugation in a way that the woman who finds herself picked up and tossed in the car is not. Even military strategists recognize the futility of superior force in their studies of asymmetrical conflict.

Anyhow, the herd mentality exists for a reason and you simply have to accept it. What no one should ever accept, however, is the verbal bullying. I wish every woman would understand that men regard this behavior about as well as women regard a man who physically abuses his wife. If your husband’s friends are strangely quiet around you and their conversation falls silent every time you enter the rooom, there’s a reasonable chance that they consider you the female equivalent of a wife beater. There are a variety of ways to play bully and none of them are attractive. Silence denotes neither acceptance nor approval.

JW is correct and I am no misogynist, but being a male of unusual verbal skills, I have always enjoyed the look of utter shock on a woman’s face when I turn her words around and shred her to bits in public. I’m not sure if it is my ability or my willingness to do so that is more unexpected, but on more than one occasion I have had the impression that the men around were on the verge of breaking into spontaneous applause at the verbal vivisectomy. I can’t stand bullies of any kind and I derive much the same pleasure from taking down a verbal bully as I once did from bouncing a physical bully’s head off a brick wall.

One of the reasons that I married Space Bunny was that she never once forced me to treat her that way; she is far too civilized to play show-the-leash games or indulge in bully-cat behavior. Such women are, in the words of the wise man, more precious than gold.

From the Boston Herald:

Stephen Roach, the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley, has a public reputation for being bearish. But you should hear what he’s saying in private. Roach met select groups of fund managers downtown last week, including a group at Fidelity.

His prediction: America has no better than a 10 percent chance of avoiding economic “armageddon.”

Press were not allowed into the meetings. But the Herald has obtained a copy of Roach’s presentation. A stunned source who was at one meeting said, “it struck me how extreme he was – much more, it seemed to me, than in public.” Roach sees a 30 percent chance of a slump soon and a 60 percent chance that “we’ll muddle through for a while and delay the eventual armageddon.” The chance we’ll get through OK: one in 10. Maybe.

I tend to agree with Roach. He’s one of the few mainsteam economists for whom I have any respect. Gold is very good, but likely will take one serious price hit before skyrocketing. Remember, cash in short-term interest-bearing instruments is king during credit crunches. The massive question is whether the Fed can out-inflate the debt load. Prechter argues this is impossible, to be honest, he is persuasive but I find that very, very hard to grasp.

MW is underwhelmed by the public school defenders:

Thank you for your articles regarding homeschooling. My first thought about the non-homeschoolers arguments against homeschooling parents is… ” And expelling children when they become too much to handle, sending children to the juvenile justice system lock-up, and the recent tazering of a six year old is not child abuse?” When government employed officials decide that a child can no longer be in public school for their own reasons, it is okay. Those children in most cases are left to wander the streets while their parents work to survive. However, if a citizen decides on their own and for their own child that their child should not attend public school because they feel there are abuses in the public system, that is wrong. What a bunch of hypocrites!

What she said….

The Sports Guy is easily the best sportswriter in the business. On the Pacers-Pistons brouhaha:

Artest (season) — Given his past history, this seemed fair to me. The NBA wanted to make it clear that players aren’t allowed in the stands under any circumstances — you want situations where players are pointing out the culprits, not punching them. But do you really think the Players Association will allow one of their guys to lose an entire season of paychecks? Please. If he’s not back by March 15, I’ll be absolutely stunned.

(But here’s my compromise idea: For the rest of the season, before every game, Artest gets wheeled out to midcourt like Hannibal Lecter — you know, tied to one of those white stretchers and wearing a strait jacket and the metal facemask. Then, they untie him, and he gets to warm up with his team. I think this would get the message across to the fans — stay away from this guy.)

Jackson (30 games) — Should have been more. Even though Artest charged the stands, it still seemed like he was holding something back. Jackson came off like a bad guy in an action movie who just starts spraying his Uzi into a crowd of people for no reason. And if you watch the Wallace-Artest altercation, in the seconds leading up to Jackson challenging Lindsay Hunter and Derrick Coleman, those guys didn’t do anything that would have made him angry. He was like an enforcer in a hockey game who just wanted to drop the gloves with someone. What a nutjob.

O’Neal (25 games) — This was the one that bothered me. On one of the Detroit TV websites, they have a clip of Artest fighting those two guys in front of the Pistons bench — the situation was a little more dire than it seemed on the ESPN replays. When O’Neal landed his Kermit Washington punch, from the Detroit TV replay, it looked like that guy was getting up to charge Artest again before O’Neal belted him. More importantly, what were they doing on the floor? Doesn’t that make them fair game? By all accounts, O’Neal is one of the best guys in the league — he does a ton of stuff for his community, wins awards, all that stuff. The fact that O’Neal, out of anyone, was so upset out there shows how dangerous it was. I bet this suspension gets knocked down.

Wallace (6 games) — Seems a little low. Wallace kept escalating the incident by trying to get to Artest, leading to the blue cup getting thrown from the stands. If you’re making an example out of Artest, make one out of Wallace — none of this would have happened if he didn’t keep pouring gasoline on the fire.

(Intriguing note on Wallace: One of his posse members was the huge guy who attacked Fred Jones from behind. During the initial altercation, you can see the guy lurking behind Artest as Artest lies on the scorer’s table, almost like he’s ready to jump him. You can also see him consoling Wallace’s kids after the fact.)

And while Brian Murphy may not be in Bill Simmons’ class, he did produce the following gem from a reader, which had me in tears and almost unable to talk. Oh, sure, one could lament the decline of Western civilization and so forth, but considering the crowd at Veteran’s Stadium, it’s just too funny.

Seher recalls the halcyon days of the Vet, and remembers the “Fan-O-Vision” camera that would pan the crowd and match fans’ mugs with those of famous people. On this day, the look-alikes were matched with the cast from “The Wizard of Oz.” Writes Seher: “When they got to the Scarecrow, the look-alike was not too happy, and gave the camera a certain salute involving a certain finger. Later in the game, they show the Dorothy look-alike, and this girl was no older than 12. This time, the camera got a Double Salute. Needless to say, the Fan-O-Vision crew retired this idea.”

I hate fan-cam. Absolutely loathe it. It’s so condescending while simultaneously lifting off the lid on the ludicrous hunger for the limelight that lurks in far too many souls. That little girl deserves a medal.

1. SB’s doggone Wallabies are my nemesis. They have three wins. Two of them came at my expense.

2. NFL strategic thinking may be at an all-time low. The Lions were running all over the Vikings but throughout the game Joey Harrington couldn’t find a wide receiver to save his life. Down by three with five minutes left, what did they do? Pass-pass-pass, (actually four pass plays called with the false start penalty) for a total of -12 yards. The Vikings, on the other hand, did the right thing by running the ball into the line three times and burning two minutes off the clock. Even with an almost non-existent defense, giving the ball to a quarterback who’s only thrown for 91 yards with less than two minutes left and no time-outs is an excellent call.

3. Michael Vick: still overrated. He’s not a bad quarterback. I never said that, I just said that he is not even a star, still less a superstar. Sure, he can run well, but I’ll take Drew Brees over him any day. The NFL’s marketing people are always enamoured of a black quarterback who can run the ball, but they don’t win championships. Daunte Culpepper, Donovan McNabb and Steve McNair all became much more effective quarterbacks once they learned to run only when necessary.

4. 14-2 on the picks. Not bad at all, but it was an easy week. Didn’t even win the picks pool with that. I would have gone 15-1 if I’d been paying attention and realized Denny was playing the QB-shuffle. Obviously Chokechain is holding me back.

5. I still don’t quite buy the Pony Express. The history of overpowering offenses winning it all is not exactly a good one, take it from someone who watched every minute of the ’98 Vikings. Too bad the Colts aren’t still in the AFC East so we could get a second chance to see how they match up with New England. Also, I think Pittsburgh might stone them while pulling a Parcells and keeping the ball out of Peyton’s hands, especially if they get the Colts at home.

6. Is Chucky a good coach or not? I have no idea. Maybe he and Brian Griese simply needed to find each other. But why does Brad Johnson always find disfavor in his coaches eyes? I mean, this dates back to college ball. I, for one, was FURIOUS when Denny kept Randall instead of Brad, then he gets shafted by the Redskins – who haven’t won since – wins a Super Bowl in Tampa with an excellent QB rating and still somehow finds himself on the bench again. I wouldn’t blame him if he has developed a persecution complex the size of Warren Sapp’s ego.

7. Speaking of Warren Sapp, where did he go? Or the rest of the Raiders, for that matter.

8. Bill Parcells is out of magic. The Cowboys were probably doomed anyhow, but the failure to pick up Stephen Jackson in the draft ensured their failure. Eventually, a lack of talent will do you in.

9. The Sports Guy is wise beyond his years. In week 2, he said that eventually everyone would realize that even with Priest Holmes, Kansas City is a bad team. The Chiefs are now 3-7.

10. The countdown on Mike Martz starts now. I strongly suspect he’s one of those coaches who has been promoted beyond his capability. A brilliant offensive coordinator does not necessarily make a great coach. However, once he gets fired, I’d try very, very hard to hire him as an offensive coordinator if I were a GM. Assuming, of course, that his ego could handle the demotion. As far as Haslett goes, he may not survive the week after last week’s bomb.

SB does his best impression of Leonidas:

It may be true the public schooling was part of Nazi and Communist indoctrination. But it was introduced by the Puritans (and their allies against Monarchy, the Levellers, etc.). The reason it is so important in a democracy is that if a large group of people will be voting, they should be literate and sophisticated.

The Puritan system of schooling had died out long before the American Revolution. The present system hails from Andrew Bell’s importation of the Hindu schooling method, which was explicitely designed to preserve the caste system and instill a servile attitude in the sub-Brahmin castes. SB’s first logical flaw is revealed by his error in confusing a representative republic with a democracy, the second is his assumption a public school can reliably produce literate and sophisticated graduates.

I agree with you that leftists have taken over the educational arena. (When I went to school, we really were taught to be patriotic, with no apologies). I also agree that the government is not very good at running anything, and schools are no different. How far would you go in trying to remedy this? Eliminate all public support for education? It is not hard to see what this would lead to. This is a classic case of “free rider effect.” What’s good for the country is a populace which is very well trained and educated. We all benefit from that. If the full burden is returned to the parents, who compose only a small part of the population, and not a very wealthy part either, only the wealthiest will be able to provide an adequate education for their children even to reach their own level of success.

There is so much wrong here, factually and logically, that one barely knows where to start. In 2002, there were 3.1 million public school teachers in America and 54.7 million school-age children in public, private and home schools. Since the American birth rate is 2.07/woman, that means that there are around 50 million parents of school-age children, or one-sixth of the population. If one percent of the population suffices to maleducate 47.7 million children in the present public system, surely the sixteen percent who doubtless care far more for their children can manage to achieve results at least as good. And yes, I absolutely would eliminate all public support for education, as government funding inevitably destroys that which it is theoretically supposed to support.

It’s all well and good to say “Just let my wife figure out how to educate the children.” For most people, that is just not going to happen, because most people are not cut out to be educators. It’s true, as you say,that the government does not own our children. That is not the point. What’s good for the individual is not the same as what is good for the society when it comes to education. Our country must collectively support education or we really will be overwhelmed by the other countries which do support education.

If you allow the collectivist enough rope, eventually he will reveal his true colors and hang himself. SB clearly views der Staat as supreme, with precedence over the rights of the individual. But America rose to global dominance without the public school system. Despite its military power, America now appears to be in irretrievable long-term decline and the failures of the public school system – or rather, its success in creating a subservient middle class – are more than a little responsible for allowing this decline to take place. It is worth noting that it is only the private university system that competes favorably with the rest of the world; our centralized public schools are worse than most other public school systems which are smaller, less politicized and less prone to destructive intellectual fads.