Written by: Anonymous

In his last column, John Derbyshire debated whether Jennifer Aniston is still attractive. He pointed out a fact that most open-minded men will not dispute, women are at their most attractive between ages 15 and 20. While personally I think some women are more attractive in their twenties than their teens, the fact remains that 9 out of 10 male readers will read the blog entitled "Attractive 17 Year Old Girls" well before the one entitled "Attractive 27 Year Old Girls".

But I think his point brings up a more important issue at stake than whether or not Jennifer Aniston is still attractive. Let's review the facts:

1. Rational, open minded people can agree that women are often at their most attractive from ages 15-20
2. Rational, open minded people can also agree that girls at this age are likely to be attracted to older men, as:
a. girls this age are more mature than boys this age
b. women are generally attracted to men with wealth and power, which men are more likely to possess than teenage boys
3. We as a society believe that it is not morally appropriate or advantageous for men above the age of 18 to have sexual relations with women under the age of 18, and thus have made the act illegal

These contradictions shouldn't necessarily be too much of a problem, after all, the whole point of laws is to prevent us from committing undesirable acts which our passions nevertheless incline us towards committing. A problem arises, however, when we simultaneously do our best to convince teenage girls that they should be having sex, while outlawing sexual relations with the partners they are most apt to choose. It is also difficult for men to understand the rationale of the law or to take it too seriously when they see the schools handing the girls condoms and see teenage sex normalized and condoned in virtually every form of media.

Perhaps our society needs to consider whether or not we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Written by: Beck

Happy Thanksgiving!

Written by: Anonymous

I had the misfortune of tuning into Anderson Cooper's news program tonight in the middle of an interview. He was speaking with another one of the media's paragons of dispassionate reporting, Time's Baghdad Bureau Chief, Michael Ware. For a quick summary of what he said, read here.

But woops, as you might have noticed, this was actually a link to comments he made in 2004. But it's really quite a good summary of what he had to say tonight, and served me well since I didn't have a chance to record the interview tonight.

Of course tonight he didn't mention the elections being a sham, as I guess he knows that would be pretty hard to swallow now. He also didn't argue that Fallujah would be repeated "here, there, and everywhere", as that would have sounded a little silly as well. And no, he did not mention soldiers "atomizing" civilians, but I am sure he would have gotten around to it if he had the time.

There were some other things he didn't mention, such as the fact that the war seems to be making a lot more Iraqis into allied soldiers rather than jihadists, or the fact that the Zarqawi seems to have alienated far more Muslims than he appears to have won over, particularly in Iraq and Jordon.

But why would he know any better? There's only so much information you can garner from sitting around your hotel lobby, talking to the other journalists and confirming each other's ignorance, and waiting for your trusted buddy from the old Iraqi Ministry of Information to come bring you your news story for the evening, and to tell you "how Iraqis really feel".

Not that I know much more sitting here at my computer desk in the U.S. But I do know enough to say that this guy is an untrustworthy hack, motivated more by ideology and Bush-hatred than a desire to provide accurate reporting. It would be nice to know the real story.

Written by: Anonymous

Here's a great way to create unnecessary strife:

Step 1: Remove Iran from the World Cup (so far I am all in favor)

Step 2: Arbitrarily replace it with Israel (huh?)

Seriously, that's what this article on NRO proposes.

I'm all for pissing off the Islamic world for legitimate purposes, but not to give Israel an automatic berth in a soccer tournament.

Written by: Anonymous

Fox News is supposedly the balancing voice of the Right in television media, but I think that's giving them way too much credit. When it comes down to it, Fox basically regurgitates the same news cycle that the liberal media creates.

The problem comes down to what Fox reports, not how it reports it. There are an infinite number of events taking place around the world that a media outlet could report on, but only a certain number of those events can be considered newsworthy enough to be included in the news cycle. The items that make this cut, and the manner in which they are reported on, are subjective. That is simply a fact of human nature and will not change regardless of how much journalists like to think of themselves as champions of impartiality. Consequently, the resulting news cycle is largely shaped by two human desires; the desire to increase profits by reporting the news items with the highest shock and interest value, and the desire to further personal biases and agendas. Since the media is overwhelmingly made up of Left-leaning individuals, this second factor results in a news cycle that supports a Leftist agenda.

This is where Fox fails. Rather than do the reporting necessary to create its own news content, Fox reports the same information as the rest of the media, with the exception that they wear American flag pins on their lapels and use slightly less negative terminology when describing Bush, Iraq, etc. But that doesn’t change the most important fact, the news content is determined by the Left.

In Iraq, for instance, the vast majority of news reported seems selected to further the message of quagmire, chaos, and failure. But that doesn't have to be the case. There is plenty good to report. When I was in Iraq, I was always astounded by the difference in accuracy between reporting that came from embedded reporters and the reporting which came from reporters holed up in their Bagdad or Kuwait hotels. Fox could portray a much more balanced and informed view of the war by simply getting more of their reporters embedded with units and devoting more of their time and resources to actual journalism.

Fox's failure to provide much independent reporting means that many of their stories and information are purchased or picked up from liberal sources. I find this especially frustrating because Fox never seems to have any trouble getting its own information on the latest pretty, suburban white woman to disappear. Why can't they devote some of those resources to international affairs?

Take a trip to FoxNews.com. I'll bet you it will look startingly similar to CNN.com. As I write this blog, Fox is carrying the same three lead stories CNN is carrying, and two out of three of these articles were written by the Associated Press. This is supposed to be the Conservative media?

I hope we can do better. As Conservatives we are truly doomed if we are going to pin our hopes on Fox News to even out the media battlefield.

Written by: Anonymous

Civil rights are clearly an important issue. But unfortunately anytime most Conservatives, including myself, hear the term "civil rights" the first thought that comes to mind is "ughhh, what now?".

This is in large part due to the likes of people like Jesse Jackson, who have abused civil rights to feed a shameless grievance industry. But Jesse, it seems, isn't satisfied with the damage he has already done to the term "civil rights". He wants to make sure no open minded person can take the issue seriously. At least that's the only conclusion I can draw from his recent defense of Terrell Owens against the Eagle's organization.

Granted, the Reverend never accuses anyone of racism in this press release. But let's face it, the fact that this is an official press release of the Rainbow Coalition makes it clear to the Eagles' organization that the ugly bugabear of race is just waiting to come out. And more importantly it is clear to the American public that the leader of the civil rights movement views this as an issue with civil rights implications.

My guess is that Jesse won't push the issue much farther (particularly if the Eagles decide to make a donation to the Rainbow Coalition), but nevertheless, the damage has already been done. The more people begin to associate civil rights with things like protecting spoiled misbehaving NFL stars, the more quick they will be to dismiss it as an irrelevent and unimportant issue.

Written by: Anonymous

I figure that the French will get a handle on the riots over the next few days and the disturbances will gradually die down and be mostly forgotten by the international media. There will be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth among the French politicians and intelligentsia for a while, and the French Far Right will pick up votes, but the real issues brought up by the riot will be either ignored or exacerbated by further government largesse.

The real effects of the French riots will become apparent later on, and they will have less to do with the actions of the French State than with the actions of the international Islamic terrorist threat. The Islamic terrorists have long seen and understood the potential of using Europe's Muslim population to further their agenda, and have long had a significant presence in France. The scale and coverage of these riots, however, has probably surprised even them, and will encourage them to focus more of their efforts and resources on the promising European front.

After all, if you were an Islamic terrorist, which would you prefer if given the option:

a) to fight in Iraq, living in tough, uncomfortable conditions, where your likely fate is to be ratted out by fellow Muslims and hunted down and killed by American troops, or..

b) to agitate and lay the groundwork for insurrection in France, living on a comfortable government dole and enjoying all the perks and entertainments of modern life.

The riots that are occurring now are mostly a result of disaffected, bored, disallusioned, uneducated male youths, i.e., "scum", to use Sarkozy's term, doing what disaffected, bored, disallusioned, uneducated male youths usually do when given the excuse - cause trouble. But with the interest and ambitions of the international Islamic terrorist movement now attuned to France, the next time the Muslims of France riot you can be certain that it will be about much more than that.

Written by: Beck

From IMAO, the Top Ten Reasons Given for Rioting in France. My favorites:

8. Grueling thirty-hour work week doesn't leave enough time to brood.

5. Someone tawt he taw a German.

From Scrappleface, France to Let Rioters Govern Themselves. Ah, irony:

After seven nights of riots by youth in predominantly-Muslim sections of Paris, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man) announced today that police would pull out of areas where dozens of cars burn each night to, "let the freedom-fighting insurgents govern themselves."

From Point Five, Dr. Seuss meets Franz Kafka in The Frinch

"All we need's a Committee, a Benefits Plan!
The kind that has softened Frinch, woman and man!
We'll give them all Pensions! We'll give them all Cake!
And government jobs--they can be on the Take!
Some Graft! Some Free Food! And Six Weeks Vacation!
We'll give them the keys to our whole Frinchy Nation!
And leftover Vouchers For Oil From Iraq
We'll load them all up in this oversized sack!"

And finally, my favorite, via Insults Unpunished, Michael Kelly presents French Intellectuals to be Deployed in Afghanistan to ConvinTalibanban of Non-Existence of God. This one was actually written in late 2001, and doesn't directly relate to the riots going on now, but I just couldn't resist including it here. Brief excerpt:

Elements from the feared Jean-Paul Sartre Brigade, or 'Black Berets', will be parachuted into the combat zones to spread doubt, despondency and existential anomie among the enemy. Hardened by numerous intellectual battles fought during their long occupation of Paris's Left Bank, their first action will be to establish a number of pavement cafes at strategic points near the front lines. There they will drink coffee and talk animatedly about the absurd nature of life and man's lonely isolation in the universe. They will be accompanied by a number of heartbreakingly beautiful girlfriends who will further spread dismay by sticking their tongues in the philosophers' ears every five minutes and looking remote and unattainable to everyone else.

Update: Almost missed Iowahawk's fantastic contribution to the genre, French Film Star Le Pew Injured in Paris Cat Riots. A sample:

Former French matinee idol Pepe Le Pew was among the hundreds injured last night amid violent feline rioting in the impoverished Parisian suburb of Dans-le-Crappeur. Le Pew, 58, a former Warner Brothers studio actor turned Chirac government spokes-skunk, sustained severe scratches and concussions in the melee before nose-pin equipped EMT rescue squads could drag him to safety. He is expected to make a full recovery.

Written by: Anonymous

Maybe the French should follow their own advice, declare Paris a UN Protectorate, and call for UN Peacekeepers to deal with the riots. Since their current policy of unilateralism is only inflaming the situation, shouldn't they give the global community a crack at the job? Why it would only take 8-9 months at most to get a suitable Security Council Resolution passed, and once that was done, soon enough they'd have UN Blue Helmets on the ground, making sure French citizens (particularly the 12 year old girls) were safe to walk the streets again.

Written by: Beck

The headline: Supreme Court nominee routinely sides with business

Amusingly, The Indianapolis Star implicitly assumes that siding with business is by definition a bad thing. After all, what have businesses ever done for the world?

Written by: Beck

I think this is what Rush's song The Trees was about. But I'm just inferring.

Written by: Beck

First, read the brief post immediately below this one.

It's OK, take your time, I'll wait.

Anyway, as I said, I sent them a response. It was brief, and basically amounted to, "What in the hell is a liquid filled mouse?"

Asked and answered.