MICKEY KAUS ON Sex, Arianna, and the Future of Journalism. Which involves boobies, apparently. Darn!
Archive for 2009
December 1, 2009
TAX PROBLEMS of the White House party crashers.
SOMETHING IN THE WATER is feminizing male fish. Pee from birth-control-pill takers? Or something else?
WHAT? No more Zweiback?
UPDATE: Charlie Martin writes: “It’s toast.” Heh.
TAKING THE WHOLE BACON-ENTHUSIASM THING a bit too far?
It’s the “gateway meat!”
BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE ABOUT CLIMATEGATE AND HEALTHCARE:
FROM THE DOWNING STREET MEMOS to the East Anglia emails.
TIM CAVANAUGH: Larry Summers: His Genius Can’t Be Measured In Dollars. “The best part about news coverage of Larry Summers is seeing all the new ways people find to avoid saying that the current director of the President Obama’s National Economic Council is an arrogant fool.”
Well, except when they’re, you know, Tim Cavanaugh. Related item here.
JAMES TARANTO ON THE AFGHANISTAN SPEECH: “It sounds as though, after months of indecision, the president has finally resolved to be irresolute.”
November 30, 2009
HANNA ROSIN: Why Tiger’s Not Talking. “If he admits she hit him, she could end up in jail, whether he likes it or not.”
Rosin is entirely wrong, however, to call female abusers “mythical.” For example, see this study: “The study, published in the journal Violence and Victims, also found no independent link between an individual’s use of alcohol or drugs and committing domestic violence. In addition it showed that nearly twice as many women as men said they perpetrated domestic violence in the past year, including kicking, biting or punching a partner, threatening to hit or throw something at a partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving a partner, said Herrenkohl.”
And note this from the American Psychological Association: “Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them). In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly.”
Then there’s the fact that Rosin herself mentions a number of well-known abusive celebrity women (Tawny Kitaen, et al.) in the process of writing a piece about, well . . . .
Rosin also writes: “It is impossible to imagine Tiger occupying the same cultural brain space as Rihanna, with Nordegren playing Chris Brown. If Tiger had been chasing down his wife with a golf club and she had shown up with bruises, even if she had cheated with, say, K-fed, we would be a lot less ambivalent and complacent.” That’s probably correct, for certain values of the word “we,” but why is that, exactly? Cheating men deserve to be beaten, even with weapons, while cheating women do not?
Or could it be, you know, sexism? But that’s not possible, because Hanna Rosin can’t be sexist, and neither can those who agree with her. If you’re Hanna Rosin, “sexist” is a name you call other people. You know, bad people who believe in stereotypes and stuff.
BITES FROM THE APPLE: A roundup of news from the Apple empire. Including testing the new iPhone, and a weight-loss app that seems to work.
THE ANCHORESS on the White House gatecrashing story and who knew who.
HAIR OF THE DOG: Katie Couric gets down with Stephen Green.
A ROUNDUP: Cutoff dates for free shipping at various online merchants.
PJTV: Warmists Give ClimateGate The Cold Shoulder. “What do Geenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Center for American Progress have to say about the growing Climategate scandal?”
Looking kind of nervous.
FROM POPULAR SCIENCE, a buyer’s guide to netbooks.
AT AMAZON, Cyber Monday markdowns on Jewelry.
MEGAN MCARDLE ON HEALTHCARE AND ABORTION: “As the Senate moves to debate the Senate health care bill, we’re seeing another stream of opinion pieces that fall into the broad category of ‘Oh my God! Who would have thought that a government run health care plan would make coverage decisions based on political considerations?'”
Where the government’s involved, it’s all political. Which is why feminists shouldn’t back government healthcare, when (1) public sentiment is becoming less pro-choice; and (2) on healthcare, women are already taking more than their share.