Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Sometimes I Wonder Which Is Funnier
The Weekly World News or the New York Times. Specifically, I'm referring to their editorial review of last night's SOTU speech. Most of it is just boilerplate Times stuff "Blah blah blah...we hate Republicans....whine bitch piss moan...he should govern like a Democrat...yadda yadda yaddda...". But, the real belly laugh comes here:
Saddled?? SADDLED???!! Excuse me for a moment.
BWWAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
There, that's better. Sorry about that. Yeah saddled. I hear it every morning. The cries of the nation: "Please, President Bush, tax us more!" or "Damn it! I wish I could pay a larger tax bill!". I mean, even if you assume that the deficits are a consequence of lower taxes and not runaway spending, it's obviously not the case that the country is saddled, or burdened, with low taxes. Its burden, in that case, is from the deficit. For a paper that prides itself on its literary pretensions, you'd think the Times would at least be able to draw that distinction.
The Weekly World News or the New York Times. Specifically, I'm referring to their editorial review of last night's SOTU speech. Most of it is just boilerplate Times stuff "Blah blah blah...we hate Republicans....whine bitch piss moan...he should govern like a Democrat...yadda yadda yaddda...". But, the real belly laugh comes here:
Neither broken promises nor failed policies changed Mr. Bush’s mind. So the nation has been saddled with tax cuts that have turned a budget surplus into a big deficit...
Saddled?? SADDLED???!! Excuse me for a moment.
BWWAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
There, that's better. Sorry about that. Yeah saddled. I hear it every morning. The cries of the nation: "Please, President Bush, tax us more!" or "Damn it! I wish I could pay a larger tax bill!". I mean, even if you assume that the deficits are a consequence of lower taxes and not runaway spending, it's obviously not the case that the country is saddled, or burdened, with low taxes. Its burden, in that case, is from the deficit. For a paper that prides itself on its literary pretensions, you'd think the Times would at least be able to draw that distinction.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Must Stop Laughing
Okay. Here's an interesting piece from the Huffington Post about disgraced former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's ex-wife, Dina, writing a tell-all book. Hmmm.... It's not like Arianna wouldn't know a thing or two about following up a career as a beard with one of all-around publicity whore. Maybe she can give Dina a few pointers. I'm just hoping to see some funny comments
Okay. Here's an interesting piece from the Huffington Post about disgraced former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's ex-wife, Dina, writing a tell-all book. Hmmm.... It's not like Arianna wouldn't know a thing or two about following up a career as a beard with one of all-around publicity whore. Maybe she can give Dina a few pointers. I'm just hoping to see some funny comments
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Wow! It Must Be Stupid Season
James Lileks gives a pretty good dressing down to this vapid little piece of misrepotage in the Times talking about the fact that the majority of women are unmarried. The actual lede of the report is a little weak, given they start womanhood at 15, but I'll let that drop. The funnier part is their attempt to show this as an exciting, dynamic example of liberation and "changing social patterns".
They point to Besse Gardner, who says “We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” and Shelley Fidler, who opines "The benefits were completely unforeseen for me, the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.” The Times goes, of course.
Lileks rightfully notes that the Times would no doubt have a somewhat different take on the phenomenon if it were the men were divorcing for fun. But, I'll leave that out of this. What I find funnier is his comment of the Times reference to all this as "Things Smart People Know To Be So". I absolutely understand where he's coming from with this. Unfortunately, the "Smart People" aren't so smart when it comes to actual empirical research. You see:
* Married people are healthier and longer lived than their peers.
* Married people are happier than their peers.
* Married parents are likely to be saner than their peers.
The list goes on. It doesn't mean go out and marry the first person you can snag, but it does suggest that the Times might be guilty of relying a little too heavily on anecdotal evidence from people who are infatuated with the upsides of their decisions.
James Lileks gives a pretty good dressing down to this vapid little piece of misrepotage in the Times talking about the fact that the majority of women are unmarried. The actual lede of the report is a little weak, given they start womanhood at 15, but I'll let that drop. The funnier part is their attempt to show this as an exciting, dynamic example of liberation and "changing social patterns".
They point to Besse Gardner, who says “We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” and Shelley Fidler, who opines "The benefits were completely unforeseen for me, the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.” The Times goes, of course.
Lileks rightfully notes that the Times would no doubt have a somewhat different take on the phenomenon if it were the men were divorcing for fun. But, I'll leave that out of this. What I find funnier is his comment of the Times reference to all this as "Things Smart People Know To Be So". I absolutely understand where he's coming from with this. Unfortunately, the "Smart People" aren't so smart when it comes to actual empirical research. You see:
* Married people are healthier and longer lived than their peers.
* Married people are happier than their peers.
* Married parents are likely to be saner than their peers.
The list goes on. It doesn't mean go out and marry the first person you can snag, but it does suggest that the Times might be guilty of relying a little too heavily on anecdotal evidence from people who are infatuated with the upsides of their decisions.
Boy, Now THAT'S a Stupid Comment
In this interview with ABC News some our new lady Senators have proven they are capable of really imbicilic remarks
Sure, I can accept that. If women were in charge there would be less war. It's just that there'd be a major international crisis every 28 days.
Sorry for the offensive comment, ladies, but this sort of piffle doesn't deserve much better. As James Taranto correctly notes Larry Summers was run out of the Presidency of Harvard for comments that were a lot more supportable. All one has to do is look at history to see how incredibly ill considered the comment is. If we are to assume that ladies are incapable of waging war, I guess we have to assume that the little thing Maggie Thatcher had with the Argentinians over the Falklands was just a difference of opinion, or that Golda Meir's issue with the Arabs was just a touch of that "not so fresh feeling". The list can easily be lengthened. The bottom line is that history shows that women are more than capable of being warlike.
But, you don't need to be a historian to realize this. Ask any bouncer and they'll tell you, fights between women are much more violent and much more vindictive. Heck, Athena was the Goddess of War, after all.
The more ridiculous part of all this garbage is the pop psychology that underlies all this notion. Countries don't go to war because their leaders think it's cool and like to blow shit up. They go to war for real, underlying interests and threats. You see, when there's a war, the leadership has to send people off to go fight and die. Not only does that suck from a moral and psychic perspective, but it presents a real big political risk. War, after all, is frought with uncertainty, and losses and setbacks can create huge problems for them. So, they only decide for war when the perceived danger of inaction (and I'm including opportunity cost) exceeds that risk. The reason you see so few countries whose male leaders systematically reject war isn't that men are warlike, but that the countries who had such leaders have either been conquered or exist as de facto protectorates of countries with leaders who don't have these qualms.
At the end of the day, I don't think most women share these views. I think they're the presumptuous blatherings of a few third rate politicians. But, it would be nice if more women might speak up and address them as such.
In this interview with ABC News some our new lady Senators have proven they are capable of really imbicilic remarks
Sawyer then asked the senators whether they thought there would be less war if more women were in leadership positions in government.
"How sure are you that there would be less war?" she asked.
"I think that women are agents of change. And while we're only 16 percent of the United States Senate, we are trying to make change," Cantwell said. "So it doesn't mean that you're going to predict the outcome, but it does mean you will hear about collaboration, you will hear about cooperation and you will hear about a format that I think brings people together."
With women in charge, there would be more collaboration, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., told Sawyer.
Sure, I can accept that. If women were in charge there would be less war. It's just that there'd be a major international crisis every 28 days.
Sorry for the offensive comment, ladies, but this sort of piffle doesn't deserve much better. As James Taranto correctly notes Larry Summers was run out of the Presidency of Harvard for comments that were a lot more supportable. All one has to do is look at history to see how incredibly ill considered the comment is. If we are to assume that ladies are incapable of waging war, I guess we have to assume that the little thing Maggie Thatcher had with the Argentinians over the Falklands was just a difference of opinion, or that Golda Meir's issue with the Arabs was just a touch of that "not so fresh feeling". The list can easily be lengthened. The bottom line is that history shows that women are more than capable of being warlike.
But, you don't need to be a historian to realize this. Ask any bouncer and they'll tell you, fights between women are much more violent and much more vindictive. Heck, Athena was the Goddess of War, after all.
The more ridiculous part of all this garbage is the pop psychology that underlies all this notion. Countries don't go to war because their leaders think it's cool and like to blow shit up. They go to war for real, underlying interests and threats. You see, when there's a war, the leadership has to send people off to go fight and die. Not only does that suck from a moral and psychic perspective, but it presents a real big political risk. War, after all, is frought with uncertainty, and losses and setbacks can create huge problems for them. So, they only decide for war when the perceived danger of inaction (and I'm including opportunity cost) exceeds that risk. The reason you see so few countries whose male leaders systematically reject war isn't that men are warlike, but that the countries who had such leaders have either been conquered or exist as de facto protectorates of countries with leaders who don't have these qualms.
At the end of the day, I don't think most women share these views. I think they're the presumptuous blatherings of a few third rate politicians. But, it would be nice if more women might speak up and address them as such.
