Month: August 2009

by Conor Friedersdorf

Do you know what should bother feminists (and everyone else too)? The Web site Roissy in DC, written by a member of the "pickup artist community" that I upset in my prior posts on "the neg." Its author is begging to be the subject of  an undercover investigative piece written by the talented Angela Valdez. (I'd enjoy an Amanda Marcotte post too).

The tragic thing about Roissy in DC is the emptiness of its approach to women. Hookups, dating and marriage are cast as games that are won by the men who are best able to perpetrate an extended con on a conquest who is misled about his personality, aspirations, level of their affection, etc. Every last detail is contrived strategy, and the inevitable effect of the sundry deceptions is a relationship with someone who doesn't actually like you even if you wind up having sex with or even marrying her.

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status.

by Patrick Appel

Ed Morrissey:

The advocates of ObamaCare insist that medical decisions will remain between doctors and patients and not involve mandates from government.  However, the same people also cheer the idea of government “coaching” doctors to adopt practices, and to back up those choices with pressure from payment schedules, which will result in de facto diktats, especially when it evolves into a single-payer system.  If they succeed, expect to see a campaign to push new parents into circumcising their male children in the name of AIDS prevention — even though the risks are manageable and the effect less than certain.

The NYT:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision or all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The CDC is thinking of promoting circumcision, not requiring it. Whether or not you agree with the procedure, this controversy has nothing to do with health care reform. If single-payer leads to more circumcision, then how come America has among the highest rates of circumcised men in the world, much higher than most if not all countries with socialized medicine?

Tracy Arm, Alaska, 1.30 pm

by Conor Friedersdorf

The New York Times chronicles the terrible job prospects at big law firms. I feel for this year's graduates, especially folks like this guy:

After he lost his job as a television reporter two years ago, Derek Fanciullo considered law school, thinking it was a historically sure bet. He took out “a ferocious amount of debt,” he said — $210,000, to be exact — and enrolled last September in the School of Law at New York University.

“It was thought to be this green pasture of stability, a more comfortable life,” said Mr. Fanciullo, who had heard that 90 percent of N.Y.U. law graduates land jobs at firms, and counted on that to repay his loans. “It was almost written in stone that you’ll end up in a law firm, almost like a birthright.”

Despite my empathy for people whose plans were ruined by changing economic circumstances, however, I cannot help but think that overall the decline of big law firms is a great thing for society. It is perverse that every year America sends thousands of its brightest young people to be paid six figures to pore over discovery documents in lawsuits between big corporations. The billable hour is itself an absurd method for determining the price tag of legal services in many situations where it is used.

by Chris Bodenner

When I read the invective that Breibart leveled against Kennedy yesterday, I reflexively winced. But then I remembered the impressive tirade Hitchens gave after Falwell's death, and it got me thinking about the "speak no ill" taboo. Clive Crook says it better than I can:

[H]ow to deal with Chappaquiddick has been a problem for many commentators and obituarists. Many decided, I think, that decency requires a veil to be drawn and euphemisms deployed, such as Wilentz's in that snippet. I disagree. I think you have to look at it unflinchingly, because you cannot understand the miracle of Kennedy's redemption otherwise. What he did was terrible. He survived as a politician only because of his name–a disgusting thing. But it changed him, and see what he then did with his life. He was emphatically not, as Paul Krugman writes, always a great man. He was once much less than a great man. What is astonishing is that he nonetheless made himself a great man.

And sometimes, as in the case of Falwell, there's just schadenfreude.

by Patrick Appel

Andrew Gelman runs the numbers. His bottom line:

Pretty much the older you are, the less you favor government spending on health care.

by Conor Friedersdorf

In a prior post, I argued that Yelp on iPhones, and other crowd sourced consumer guides available anywhere and everywhere, would help tip the competitive balance away from chains toward mom and pop stores. Why choose a chain that reliably provides mediocre food when even better food can be identified with little risk of eating someplace awful?

The present mix we see in the market, between big chains and independent stores, is, if nothing else, a reflection of what people actually prefer. For decades, people have been voting with their dollars, and what they've produced is the leisure landscape we have today.

…Mobile Web makes it easier for people to find what they want–but it can't change what people want. Whenever you see people waxing prophetic about the influence of technology, it's almost always because their confusing a tool with what that tool expresses… asking something like Yelp to change the way we eat is like asking a mirror for advice on what to wear.

by Chris Bodenner

After news broke that the CDC might recommend circumcision for HIV prevention, KJ Dell'Antonia noticed that few if any people were debating the chance of increased promiscuity among teenage boys. Since opposition to HPV vaccination has centered on female promiscuity, she sees a double standard:

If both procedures might make unprotected sex marginally safer, why is the conversation so different? […] Granted, circumcision is an actual procedure—one I've watched twice, and one that's not accurately described by the word "snip." And we're talking about babies, not preteens, so the whole issue of sex seems less imminent. But still, a vaccine and a procedure with a shared goal of making unsafe sex just a little safer each caused a small but vocal minority to rise up in very different forms of protest. Girls might have more sex. Boys might feel less pleasure. Could the difference be any starker?

by Chris Bodenner

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who I thought was a reasonable Republican, panders to Hannity:

[T]his decision by Eric Holder today to politicize interrogations, to bring it into the White House, we should be prosecuting individuals who are involved in the war on terror as terrorists. They are cold blooded killers. We should not be prosecuting individuals who are working hard day in and day out to protect this country. […] The attorney general should be reminded we are still a nation at war and CIA shouldn't stand for "can't interrogate anyone."

Lame joke aside, there is so much intellectual dishonesty packed into his comments I don't know where to start. But Adam Blickstein does:

If Pawlenty had even the slightest bit of knowledge of our intelligence community, he would know that the CIA in recent history barely had the experience nor capacity to interrogate terror suspects, something that was traditionally done by the FBI or military.

Also, in what is now becoming a trend, the governor drops another doozy:

Having the Democrats watch your money and keep an eye over your money is like having Michael Vick watch your dog for the weekend.

by Hanna Rosin

Something strange is happening around Caster Semenya, the South African running champion who is accused of being too mannish to run in women's races. In South Africa, she got a hero (heroine's?) welcome yesterday. "Our Golden Girl," read the signs at the airport, and her rags to riches story is getting repeated as an inspiration for young girls.

In the West, meanwhile, suspicion lingers. Gregg Doyel, of CBS Sports called Renee Richards, who was born a man but had a sex change operation. In 1977, the New York State Supreme Court ruled that Richards could compete as a professional women's tennis player. Even Richards said that Semanya should not be allowed to compete as a woman, because excess testosterone gave her an unfair advantage.

So, to recap, South Africans are embracing a sexually ambiguous, possibly intersex woman while we are adhering to very rigid, chemically-based definitions of gender. Given all that we've heard about the abuse of women in Africa, this is surprising, no?