On the way back

The boys had their first tournament in a long, long time today. I decided not to have them playing in any tournaments last fall after the next level up took every single one of my eight year-olds following two stellar years of soccer excellence. I’m happy to report that they’re tearing it up at the next level, but it was really a crippling blow because I was left without a single regular member of the tournament team to demonstrate our tactics to the six and seven year olds making the transition from the regular team.

Last fall, in the one tournament before I cancelled, they did well in losing every single game without getting blown away. Today, the same group of kids won two games, lost two (including a 3-0 loss to Blue, one of the two professional teams in the area), and tied one. We would have won at least three if I’d been managing to win – we were up 3-0 in the game we tied before I put the little ones in – and the best part was the way they responded in the last game against one of the better teams.

They were tired and demoralized after playing four games and tying a game they should have won, so they just fell apart and lost 2-0 to a very unimpressive squad in the fifth game. I chewed them out, reminded them that they are not big enough or talented enough to win if they don’t play smart and with discipline, and they responded by going out and putting on a textbook clinic. I once counted six passes in a row before our midfielder put the ball into the net; another series of three passes that bisected the field twice didn’t end in a goal but provoked incredulous gasps from the opposing team’s parents.

Even though we didn’t score against Blue today, we created more chances, outshot them and will beat them in six months once our attackers learn not to drill the ball directly at the keeper. Amusingly, two of the fathers happen to be executives of large corporations and they were so excited about the results that they announced their intention to sponsor the team and provide the boys with new uniforms, warmups and whatnot.

This is the Machine, version 2.0


And you thought Raidess fans were bad

Inter Milan fans angered by their team’s unexpected elimination from the Champions League attacked the players when they returned from an Italian league victory. Fans at Malpensa airport shouted insults as the players arrived overnight, police said. In a parking lot outside the terminal, some masked fans turned violent, leaving midfielder Cristiano Zanetti with a bruise on his head.

Two police officers were injured when they tried to defend the Inter players. Police officials said they were investigating.

Pity it wasn’t Juve….


Mailvox: the elusive epicenter of normality

Pretty Lady issues a pronouncement:

I am afraid the time has come to speak strongly to you, my dear. This sort of thing is not for you to say. You are not the Representational Male, hard as you strive to be so. This is not a put-down; it is simply so. You are too Odd and Quirky. You drink blue drinks. You are Right Out as the Representational Male. Thank goodness.

The Lady is too kind. I am seldom paying attention, but if I have heard things correctly, Spacebunny and others in our social circle tend to use words such as “bizarre”, “alien planet” and “asychronous orbit” when describing my habits. However, the fact that even I can interact successfully with the Representational Male demonstrates how genuinely accepting and easy to get along with men truly are.

The rules are simple. It took me some time to figure them out, but once I did, I found that they were universally applicable, across language and culture. Once you understand that men are pack animals at heart, it’s not hard to see how they operate.

1. Shut the hell up. When granted entry into a new group of men, speak only when spoken to until it is clear that you have been accepted as an equal.

2. Accept every challenge. If you lose, accept defeat gracefully and acknowledge the winner while looking him in the eye. Trash talk is only acceptable among friends and only from winners.

3. Don’t take verbal banter personally. Smile and accept it, or give it back but in a friendly manner and with the same or a lesser amount of venom. The same goes for physical banter, except you should up the ante by a single step in order to dissuade those prone to bullying.

4. (For women mainly.) Never ever pass judgement on the group or something it collectively enjoys. To do so is not only offensive, but ensures that you will never be accepted because you have publicly declared yourself to be apart from it, if not superior to it. For example, this is why Spacebunny is tolerated by the NFL-watching gang while the other wives are not; she knows better than to whine about what the cheerleaders are wearing or their silicone content.

5. Understand that you are responsible to defend the group and its members in all circumstances. During my first soccer game in Italy, a defender took me down hard enough to draw a yellow. I had just joined the team two weeks before and didn’t even know the names of all my teammates; there were several I hadn’t met before that game. Nevertheless, three of them were immediately in the defender’s face, not because they gave a damn about me, but because they knew their responsibility as members of the group/team/pack.

6. Accept and follow the leader’s orders without open questioning or criticism, no matter how strange. If you have suggestions for improvement, offer them later, in private. I am much better tactically than the coach of my team, but I never challenge his authority or criticize any of his decisions, not even the incredibly dumb ones. (For example, starting three slow, out-of-shape guys in the midfield – two on the wings! – put us into a hole on Friday night that we couldn’t overcome.) But I’ve noticed that he’s begun to make some changes based on earlier observations we discussed.

As for what the Representational Man prefers in women, I suggest that Pretty Lady reconsider the accuracy of my assertion in light of the following point. Everyone accepts that most women are not attracted to men who, although intelligent, behave with the social grace of water buffaloes dressed like circus clowns. Men and women alike refer dismissively to these men as geeks and nerds. Why, then, would any man be attracted to the female version, self-professed intelligent women who never cease to loudly and boorishly announce their intelligence, their degrees and their career accomplishments to all and sundry?

If men were as attracted to law degrees as long hair, gentlemen’s clubs would feature scantily clad women reading from Black’s instead of sporting those gorgeous stripper manes. The evidence strongly suggests that what men like is very, very different from that which nominally intelligent women believe they should like. The fact that these intelligent women can neither recognize nor accept the realities does not speak well of the utility of their intelligence.

I, however, as the Distillation of Elite Womanhood, may make any such pronouncements that I like. We superior females must maintain some privileges.

But of course….

And meanwhile, Lauren attemps a little spin:

The many libertarians and anti-feminists who comment on Feministe will be surprised to know that everyone who posts comments on a feminist site is a spokesperson for feminism.

If Lauren will be so kind as to provide us with a list of accepted spokespersons for feminism, we shall be pleased to direct our criticisms accordingly. Of course, as we have recently seen, feminists are so desperate to avoid damnning criticism that they have recently declared Betty Friedan, Andrea Dworkin and Simone de Beauvoir to be unrepresentative of feminism despite their canonical status among feminists, leaving one to marvel at how dishonest and intellectually incoherent today’s feminists are.

Furthermore, as Lauren surely knows very well, the view expressed by the Feministe commenter is a very common one among feminists and has been echoed by many of her commenters. It is even probable that she shares it herself; if we are incorrect and Lauren is secretly pining for a man who is less intelligent, less educated and less successful than her, we hope she will let us know and we shall post a correction. Ironically, feminists, at least the straight ones, have a stronger urge to do the conventional “marrying up” than do most of their more traditional counterparts. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for society, their very accomplishments work against them by limiting the pool of their prospective mates… and, of course, most of the men they consider to be worthy of their glorious selves are intelligent enough to avoid any serious involvement with them.


How smart can you be…

If you don’t understand basic probability? A Feministe dilemma:

There’s a sweet little phrase employed by lads in my town when they meet girls in bars and want to impress upon them how superior their genes are and how lucky the girl in question would be to get some of them in her vagina. It’s called “Dropping the H-Bomb.” As in, “So what do you do?” “I’m at Haaaaarvard Laaaaaw.”

The H-bomb has been said to be inversely effective for women trying to pick up men in bars. Actually, there is a worse one in this city. There’s no pithy name for it, that I know of, but let’s just say it involves the letters M, I, and T….

I have found that dropping these magical letters is an excellent first round of screening in the mate market. Anyone who says, “Wow, so you must be smart or something” is a tool. Anyone who shies away is clearly either insecure or less smart than me. Neither of which are qualities I look for in a date.

Now, imagine that this were a wealthy man writing. And suppose he drove a brand new Porsche and declared that he was uninterested in dating anyone who was insecure or drove a lesser car. Both men and women would, quite rightly, consider him to be an idiot, because there are things that make an individual interesting and attractive besides their form of automotive transportation, furthermore, there just aren’t very many people who drive Porsches in the first place.

Keep in mind that Zuffenhausen produces 31,250 cars per year, while M.I.T. accepts 1,045 freshmen in the same time frame. It is mathematically more reasonable to insist on dating only new Porsche owners than Ivy League graduates, whether you own a Porsche or attend an Ivy League school or not.

The comment is particularly amusing in that the feminista who wrote it doesn’t understand how completely conventional her attitude happens to be. The truth is that as long as intelligent women want to marry up, they will be inordinately likely to find themselves with no shortage of time to spend on their careers… or their cats.


True Feministe Love

It seems I am her dream guy:

I like men who dress well. I like men who enjoy good food and good wine, and who can have interesting, engaging conversations where they aren’t afraid to take personal risks and emote a little bit…. I like men who aren’t embarassed to go out to a swanky lounge and order a ridiculous pink drink.

Perhaps I order the ridiculous blue drink more often than the ridiculous pink one, (which, if made properly, is really more of a dark purplish red), but otherwise, it sounds as if I could be her perfect match.

Er, wait a minute… “I like men who will get up at 5 am to ride a bus to DC with me to attend the March for Women’s Lives — and who bring their own sign.”

Unfortunately, I am so vehemently opposed to the diabolical concept of “morning” that I wouldn’t willingly agree to be woken up at 5 AM by the entire Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders squad, in uniform no less, to watch the Vikings win the Super Bowl. I’m sorry, Jill, but it seems that the cruel fates have doomed what might otherwise have been a beautiful relationship.

UPDATE: On further review, I would. But not if it was only the aforementioned cheerleaders and the NFC Championship Game.

UPDATE: Just in case girls aren’t clear on this, men have little inclination to date, much less marry, any woman who has ever participated in a march, a candlelight vigil or a sit-in of any kind. Signs are nominally acceptable, but only if they are intended for use at a sporting event and do not involve a stupid acronym involving the broadcasting enterprise. A yard sign for a political candidate is questionable, but can be forgiven so long as it is removed promptly following the election.


What they need is democracy

The problem, as will be apparent to all right-thinking individuals, was obviously the lack of pygmy suffrage:

Marauding rebels are massacring and eating pygmies in the dense forests of north-east Congo, according to UN officials who are investigating allegations of cannibalism in Ituri province, where fighting between several rebel groups has displaced about 150,000 people in the past month. [January 2003 – VD]

Many of the displaced tell of rebel fighters capturing and butchering pygmies, Manoddje Mounoubai, spokesman for the UN ceasefire monitoring mission in Congo, said yesterday. The UN had sent six officials to investigate the accusation as well as other human rights abuses, he said.

Other UN officials in the capital, Kinshasa, and the eastern city of Goma said that widespread cannibalism had already been established. ‘Ituri is completely out of control and cannibalism is just the latest atrocity taking place,’ said one, who asked not to be named until the investigators deliver their report. ‘Perhaps this will finally alert the world to what’s going on.’

On a recent assignment in eastern Congo the Guardian correspondent saw many Mayi-Mayi fighters wearing parts of the bodies of their Rwandan enemies, in the belief that this would make them invincible. ‘We are hearing reports of untold horrors in Ituri,’ said Wyger Wentholt, of Médecins sans Frontières.

While the Congolese probably wouldn’t vote Hamas into power, this tends to add an ominous undertone to the analogy of democracy being two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.

Of course, considering the proclivity for barbecuing Africans shown by UN troops themselves in the past, one has to wonder if looking to the United Nations for help is the wisest course of action.




As for me, I’ll wait and see

The New York Times is very, very excited:

Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land….

Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin’s theory.

Given the past history of missing links, I’ll be interested to learn if there are any Darwinian faithful whose belief is dependent on this fossil being genuine. I can’t imagine there are, since the ur-faith has survived numerous frauds in the past.

Now, it’s entirely possible that the discovery is genuine, its purported significance is real and there is no fraud involved. Does it prove anything? No, it is merely a proposed solution to an obvious hole in the hypothesis, and will rightly boost confidence in that hypothesis.

But should this prove to be another fraud in the long and colorful history of evolutionary science, or even a simple misinterpretation of the paleontological data, it will be interesting to see if the New York Times will cover the story so prominently, or explain how this is a “powerful rebuttal” to evolutionists and “should undercut the argument that there is… evidence in the fossil record of one creature becoming another kind.”

As I’ve said many times in the past, I am an evolutionary skeptic, not an anti-evolutionist. I do, however, find it amusing that otherwise rational evolutionists will so readily accept ontological arguments in favor of their hypothesis that they reject in most other facets of life.