For the family of faith

Perhaps there are those who are eager to face a test of their faith, who are certain they will stand unshaken by the winds of tragedy. I am not one of them and it is my sincere desire to never be so tested.

I write this because Farmer Tom tells us that there is a Christian sister and four children who are undergoing a bitter one right now as the result of her husband's death in a farm accident. So, Christians, when you next pray, I encourage you to ask your God to give them strength, to give them comfort and to bless them with all that they will need in the months and years to come.

I wish I had something meaningful to say, but I don't. I was, however, reading a prayer yesterday written by a man named Charles de Foucauld that seems somehow appropriate in the circumstances, because even when an earthly father is gone, a Heavenly Father remains.

Padre mio
mi abbandano a te,
fa di me quello che ti piace.
Qualunque cosa tu faccia di me,
io ti ringrazio.
Sono pronto a tutto, accetto tutto,
purche' la tua volonta' sia fatta in me
e in tutte le tue creature.
Non desidero altro, mio Dio.
Depongo la mia anima tra le tue mani:
te la dono, Dio mio,
con tutto l'amore del mio cuore,
perche' ti amo
ed e' per me una necessita' donarmi
affidarmi alle tue mani senza misura
con fiducia infinita,
perche' tu sei mio Padre.

Father mine
I abandon myself to you,
do with me that which you like.
Whatever you make of me,
I thank you.
I am ready for everything, I accept everything,
provided that your will is done in me
and in all of your creatures.
I do not desire aught else, my God.
I place my spirit in your hands:
I give it to you, my God,
with all the passion that is in my heart,
because I love you
and it is for me a need to give myself,
to entrust myself to your hands without measure
with infinite trust,
because you are my Father.

Speaking of writing

I am editing a new anthology in BenBella's SmartPop series. If there are any SFWA or CBA writers interested in writing 3k to 5k words on anything Apocalypse / End Times / Book of Revelations related, please let me know. The word rate is good by SFWA standards, and I am looking for both Christian and non-Christian contributors.

BenBella will be publishing THE EARTH'S LAST DAYS: Airplanes, Antichrists and the Apocalypse in LEFT BEHIND, sometime next year. We already have not one, but two NYT best-selling authors contributing, so it should be an interesting book.

And if you're an aspiring member of either organization and think you have something significant to say about Left Behind, let me know. This anthology is not a critique of the fiction series - visit BenBella's web site if you want to get a feel for what they do.

OC, I'm still waiting for your topic, mate. That goes for you too, Joe.

No wonder they're so bitter

From the NYT Magazine piece on lefty bloggers, courtesy of the good Fraters:

Anytime somebody builds a media empire, especially one that includes pornography, you assume the money is good, but in the Wonkette's case, it isn't. Her starting salary was $18,000 a year. (She's getting bonuses now for increased traffic, but not much.)

I can't even begin to express the extent of my amusement here. Remember, she represents the big time to the people who enjoy making fun of my "failed writing career". The initial print run on my new book is 25k... you do the math.

At that hourly rate, Wonkette doesn't even qualify as a media whore. Media slut, perhaps.

Mailvox: determined to see what is not there

Chris so desperately wants to believe in my intellectual dishonesty:

- You don't have to know jack about Latin or Italian, or have read everything VD has written to examine the above posts and realize VD changed his line of argument. This is clear evidence of backpedaling, right under your nose... unless you can make a substantive argument to the contrary, which seems unlikely. Furthermore, the fact that he'd backpedal on something so trivial as a glorified spelling error suggests (but does not absolutely prove) that intellectual honestly isn't real high on his list of priorities. This is something you and everyone else should keep in mind when reading through is stuff.

I haven't backpedaled at all. Not once. If anyone had simply bothered to ask me, "why did you call it Popoli instead of Populi?", I would have told them. There was already a bunch of Vox Populi this and Vox Populi that, and since I'd been learning Italian, I simply changed it to Popoli, which happens to be Italian for "peoples". "Popolo" would have made a bit more sense, but I thought that made it look like a Papal blog or something to your average person. I don't know why, but there's something inherently silly about too many unadulterated Os.

Anyhow, it is always dangerous to assume knowledge, or the lack of it, on the part of another. It is silly to assume that any political commentator would be unaware of the famous phrase, "vox populi, vox dei", and particularly stupid to do so in the case of one who actually calls himself Vox Day.

- The reason you don't see as many of the "critiques with substance" as you might wish is that VD's intellectual dishonesty, combined with the obnoxious tone and outrageous content of his remarks is more than enough for many people to write him off as a complete loon. People are only guaranteed a fair hearing in a court of law; everywhere else, it's a privilege that other people may see fit to bestow as they wish... and they usually don't bestow their time and attention on obnoxious twits like VD.

Except, of course, when they do bestow such time and attention, and still can't be bothered to walk us poor simpletons through the ridiculously easy way they can effortlessly shred my arguments. Isn't it amazing, how they always have the time to read and call names, but never enough to make the easy and coherent case they claim they could? Also, note how this argument begins from the errant assumption that I am intellectually dishonest based on the "evidence" of the blog name.

- Of course, it's not at all clear that VD particularly wants to subject his ramblings to "critiques with substance." Consider the infamous Electrolite thread that, even half a year later, still bothers VD enough for him to bitch about at every opportunity. VD's remarks were critiqued by men and women with substantive experience in almost every branch of science who stomped all over his column on the "mental pollution of feminism."

Yes, my distaste for substantive criticism is why there are month-long discussions of WWII, massive line-by-line posts on atheism and the Inquisition, and so forth. It is very clear, Chris just doesn't have a clue. Provide a serious critique, Chris, and I'll post it here. Go for it. You're not too busy to post of bunch of comments, so you're not too busy to provide an easy refutation of a recent column or two.

As for the Electrolyte uproar, do you seriously think it bothers me? Do you think that's why I happily provide links to it. It bothers me so much that I'm planning to run for SFWA president and as part of my campaign I will cite issues raised in it. Do you truly believe that I am the least bit concerned about what that group of would-be TOR authors think? They didn't do any stomping, indeed, many of them embarrassed themselves with their illogic and hypocrisy.

And contrary to what many of the reading-challenged Pandagonians - please excuse the redundancy - appear to have taken away from that Electrolyte forum, I have not been banned from either the SFWA or future Nebula juries. It would honestly appall many of those who were attacking me there to know that people believe that the SFWA engages in censorship and the suppression of free thought.

I shall await your substantive critique with some pleasure, Chris. Write as much as you like, I'll happily post it here in its entirety.

That all important ID

Jon Podhoretz gets definitive:

This is the chance to seize the populist high (or low) ground with the new terminology for '08. They're Merlot Democrats? Fine. We're Budweiser Republicans.

On that note, I hereby me and my ilk to be Amaretto Libertarians.... Okay, so maybe we're not so great when it comes to the whole popolism* thing.


*See, Norah, that's a joke. I know how to spell populism. Really, I promise.

Mailvox: Ride on time

SD doesn't disappoint:

I read worldnetdaily every day and will occasionally read your articles, although I find you pompous and long winded and not to mention a little scary looking ( are you a skinhead by the way?) As a Christian I completely disagree with your subtle condoning of polygamy, this is apparently what you secretly desire for your life! Yes Abraham had several wives, but against God's commands. God created one man and one woman and wished that they be together joined in unity as one. You and your ilk are the reason that so many non Christians hate Christianity, because they see a nation that will force women into a Taliban type situation where women are used only for child rearing purposes. When God Created Eve, he did not say this is Eve, mother of your children, he said this is your mate taken out of your side to stand equal and one with you. I will no longer suffer through your articles.

SD can read or not read, as she wishes, but she shouldn't be so predictably ridiculous. Does she honestly believe every commentator who argued that the Iraqi invasion did so because he wanted to shoot himself some Ayrabs? This is an issue that is coming down the pike thanks to the Supreme Court. Therefore, it bears consideration whether SD wants to think about it or not.

I'm curious to know how those taking Biblical exception to today's column explain God telling one of the minor prophets - Habbakuk? - to take more than one wife.

Not to mention the fact that that whole monogamous Eve thing worked out just as God planned, right? I mean, constructing an argument for God's ideal plan based on The Fall strikes me as more than a little bizarre. Genesis, too, would appear to illustrate that the Biblical ideal is to remain unmarried, so those who would base legislation on it should probably consider joining the Sisterhood in working towards the abolishment of marriage.

Only a little scary-looking? Hmmmm... how very disappointing. I knew I should have filed my teeth.

No, don' go!

Peter J. Wallison makes like The Continental on National Review:

The astonishing thing about President George W. Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court is that he made the same mistake that sank his father’s presidency. When George H. W. Bush agreed to raise taxes after promising “no new taxes,” conservatives and Republicans felt betrayed, and simply wrote him off. The lack of support from a group that should have been his base was one of the key reasons for his loss to Bill Clinton in 1992. Yet conservatives should keep in mind that we know little about Miers, and abandoning this president at this time — as his father was abandoned — could result in the collapse of support for his major domestic initiatives as well as his all-important Iraq policy.

This strikes me as a "please don't throw me in dat der briar patch" moment. If I don't stick by Bush because of Creepy McCrypto, the Iraqi Occupation will end and the Great Society II program will fall apart... now where, exactly, is the catch?

My little wide-eyed, white-tailed doe.

A right-winger on a left-wing Nobelist

From NRO's Corner:

Here's the thing: early Pinter is brilliant stuff, if you care even marginally about theatre. He made a mark on theatre that has been profound and important and--speaking strictly from the perspective of what happens on a stage, and what happens between actor and audience--magnificent....

the work remains, whatever kind of dunce the artist may be when he's not doing his thing. If it is passionate art, if it is evocative art, if it resonates in some extraordinary way with its audience, then whether it is high art or low art, from Bambi to Stagecoach to The Birthday Party, I truly don't give a rat's rear end what the artist does or says when he's off the clock. I'm sick and tired of all this passion about other people's points of view--it lends a relevancy to their politics that really doesn't exist. And it transforms the experience of being a consumer of the arts into a sort of priggish screening process, in which the artist is carefully vetted for wrongthink before we can sit back and drink in his work. Leave that to our Stalinist chums on the left...please let's not join them.

I thought this was interesting, especially in light of the criticism of my fiction - even the attacks on my right to sit in judgment of the work of my SFWA peers - that one regularly encounters among those who dislike my political opinions. Now, it's no secret that I'm not a great novelist, but I'm a reasonably popular one judging by my print runs and the number of publishers who continue to offer me book contracts.

And if THE WAR IN HEAVEN is somewhat cringe-inducing at times, I'm quite optimistic that the improvement shown in THE WORLD IN SHADOW will continue in THE WRATH OF ANGELS. I quite like the fact that a good third of my fan base is made up of a largely non-Christian goth crowd; they correctly view my Christian worldview as the starting point for the novels, not the end. I'm quite confident that they will like WRATH very much indeed - I'll post the first draft of the cover here soon.

As The Corner emailer noted, one's enjoyment of a book, a play or a movie should not completely depend upon its stroking of one's own opinions. Sure, it's impossible to enjoy something that is too heavy-handed in its assaults on one's perception of reality, (speaking of which, I've got to write a review of David Weber's Honor Harrington books soon), but one should be able to enjoy a well-crafted tale even if it contains elements of those who think very differently.

This is not to say that my books, or anyone else's books, can't suck. But they should be judged on their own merits, not on the personal merits of the author. In my opinion, this distinction has been almost entirely lost in the SFWA, which is why the OC and I will be running for office in the next SFWA election.

I hope you, my gentle readers, will not mind helping me develop my program to lead the SFWA into the 21st century and beyond....

The anti-science of evolution

It's always interesting to note the reactions of any group of religious faithful to the honest questions of skeptics. Fred, whose recent column is quoted below, is no Creationist; he's not even a Christian. I do happen to be a Christian, but I am largely agnostic on the question of origins, and I suspect that the truth is far stranger than anything anyone sane currently believes. I mean, it's not as if quantum theory looked either practical or credible to anyone prior to 1900, right?

I note that Compulsory Evolutionists are fellow travelers of the regnant cultural Marxism, though I don’t think that they are aware of it. They display the same hermetic materialism, the same desire to suppress dissent by the application of centralized governmental power, the same weird hostility to religion. They do not say, “I think Christianity is nonsense and will therefore ignore it,” but rather “These ideas shall not be permitted.”....

I once posed these questions in a column on Fredoneverything.net and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none—not one—answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.

This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.

For me, it is primarily this aggressively defensive behavior on the part of its hard-core faithful that leads me to believe evolution will eventually come to be seen by future scientists as one of the great embarrassments of 20th Century science.

Since I am a Christian, I can be easily dismissed as an ignorant Flat Earther. But ignoring intelligent atheists like Fred Reed who share my evolutionary skepticism is a little more difficult.

Mailvox: marriage and the Biblical ideal

TS brings up the Biblical question of Christian marriage:

I read with interest your article in WND stating that polygamy was simply against the present status quo and was not against God's law.

You gave one example from the Bible (from Timothy) that has been used by Christians to argue against polygamy, and basically you dismissed it (with a rather weak counter-argument, in my opinon.) However, even discounting the Timothy argument, I would offer that there are many other examples suggesting - at the very least - that paired relationships are God's ideal:

-God created Adam and Eve. He created one woman for Adam, and made her Adam's complement. He did not create two or more women for Adam. This original pair is referred to as the example of perfection.

-Jesus referred to marriage as a man and a woman becoming one flesh. He did not refer to a man and women becoming one flesh.

-The Old Testament Israeli kings were told not to have multiple wives (although they all disobeyed.)

-In every example of the Bible where polygamy is practiced, the households are torn with great jealousy and strife. We have no examples of polygamous, biblical relationships which were happy or content.

First, let me note that the question of the Biblical ideal is largely beside the point. Although they are the primary foundation of the Western cultural tradition, Biblical ideals have no place in secular law per se - the significant distinction between morality and legality that my feminist critics also can't seem to grasp - and if Christians were to be serious about enshrining Biblical ideals into law, they would probably consider banning marriage altogether. (1 Corinthians 7:8 and :38). Alternatively, one might interpret the concession Paul grants to rampant immorality as requiring marriage of everyone.

Since most Christians are not deacons or elders, your description of my Timothy- and Titus-based counter-argument as weak is very strange. If Christians could not marry more than one wife with the Church's blessing, there would be no need for the qualification. Jesus Christ's reference to "one flesh" appears to be either metaphorical or a literal description of the marital consumnation; it cannot be a reference to souls becoming one spiritually in light of his answer to the question of the ill-fated brothers and their single, much-widowed bride.

As to the Biblical examples, that statement is simply inaccurate. There are many men with multiple wives in the Bible whose states of marital harmony are not described as problematic as they are not described at all. Furthermore, most of the examples of monogamous marriage provided are equally problematic, beginning with the Adam and Eve pairing working out in sub-optimal fashion. With regards to the reference to OT kings, were the black robes to permit it, there is no reason why an additional requirement that in addition to being 35 and a natural-born citizen, a man must also have but one wife in order to be elected President.

But the main reason that these Christian objections to polygamy are spurious is that if seven of the Ten Commandmends are not enshrined in law, if the Great Commandment is not enshrined in law, there is no significant requirement for something that is only potentially a minor Biblical ideal - on the level with temperance - in comparison to be enshrined in secular law.

In fact, one could make a better Biblically-based argument for making greed illegal. It is said that the good of things can be best judged by their fruits, and there are few things as unfruitful as modern monogamous marriage in the West.

Discuss amongst yourselves

This should be mildly entertaining. I can already predict about 90 percent of the responses now, despite the fact that no one ever accuses those who foresee war of doing so out of a personal desire to invade a foreign country and shoot people up.

NFL Week 6

Last Week: 8-6. Season: 44-30, .594. Fantasy: 3-2.

W-Indianapolis Colts over St. Louis Rams
W-Carolina Panthers over Detroit Lions
W-Seattle Seahawks over Houston Texans
W-Atlanta Falcons over New Orleans Saints
W-Buffalo Bills over New York Jets
W-Dallas Cowboys over New York Giants
W-Chicago Bears over Minnesota Vikings
L-Cleveland Browns over Baltimore Ravens
W-Tampa Bay Buccaneers over Miami Dolphins
W-Kansas City Chiefs over Washington Redskins
W-San Diego Chargers over Oakland Raiders
W-Cincinnati Bengals over Tennessee Titans
W-Denver Broncos over New England Patriots
L-Pittsburgh Steelers over Jacksonville Jaguars

Not bad at all, but my satisfaction turned to ashes in my mouth when I looked up the weekly results and saw - horror of horrors - that the name atop the 114 names in the picks pool was none other than THE WHITE BUFFALO! In fact, if Indy loses, he'll end up taking home the weekly pot this week and I won't hear the end of it until either the season's over or Chokechain and I nab one. I'm already feeling nauseous - come on, Marvin and company!

I'll write about the ongoing debacle that is known as the Minnesota Vikings eventually, but probably not until Mike Tice gets fired. I tried to talk myself into the notion that trading Randy Moss would be a positive development, but from the very moment I heard the news, I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.

The bottom-feeders grunt

From Pandagon's comments:

"Be warned though, he tends to send his minions over to troll the comment threads of any blogs that post something negative about him."

Judging by the three comments contained in most of the threads I've seen, this would appear to be somewhat of an exaggeration. Actually, if someone devotes the time to write a substantial critique that actually has a point, I usually post it here in its entirety. I did leave out two paragraphs of Amanda's recent response to last week's column but only because they were largely redundant and the link was provided for those who want to read the whole thing.

"In the meantime, ask any younger libertarian you know and they will also cringe at the mention of one Vox Day."

Apparently these are the libertarians of the Bill Maher school who voted for John Kerry. That's "libertine" not "libertarian", mon cher. But don't feel bad, there's no shortage of Republicans who make the same mistake.

"It's strange. On the one hand, he advocates marriage and childbearing for young women, but in other columns, advises young men strictly against marriage. What's a girl to do? I think his answer would be: Submit to the man as the leader of your household so he can be assured that you will not divorce him in a family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything. Because if you have a career you will most likely emasculate him, then take him to family court where he is guaranteed to lose everything.

What this does -- and again, this is anti-libertarian -- is deny the individual nature of each human in a relationship. How can one self-actualize if one must live in submission to someone else's will? If your partner need not and would not even entertain that you have a world worth seeking outside of marriage? Not libertarian.

In essence, "regular" libertarians, so to speak, believe that one person's will need not work in conflict with another's. If it does, then one is with the wrong person; it's an individual situation. I am sorry to go on and on about this guy, but that he calls himself a libertarian confounds me.

This commenter fails to grasp that the interests of society and divergent groups within it can be at odds. Ergo, a young man wishing to protect his financial interests is best off pursuing one thing, a young woman wishing to get married and have children will benefit most from pursuing a very different path. Specific advice to either of these parties relating to the maximization of their interests should not be confused with what actions would be optimal for society at large.

The commenter also does not understand that libertarianism is a political philosophy relating to law and government, not pop psychology and interpersonal relations.

"I thought it was amusing when the president of the organization popped in to say they didn't know Vox was such a dick until it was too late and that he was emphatically excluded from the next jury, but it was right to hassle the other guy who just whined that he basically put a jury together of anyone who asked to be on one. If they really are a 1400+ organization, I guess Vox was a wake-up call that in the future they'll have to be a bit more careful. Awards lose thier prestige when people like Vox begin to tarnish them."

In addition to being unable to spell, this commenter can't read. To its credit, the SFWA is not about to exclude anyone from being on any of their juries on the basis of their political beliefs; I'm significantly less controversial than a number of SFWA Grandmasters were in their day. Anyhow, if the SFWA was concerned about the prestige of the Nebula, they shouldn't have given the one for best novel to Catherine Asaro, the organization's former president and foremost committer of romance novels in space.

His blog is worth checking out, especially the responses he writes to people who disagree with him. He seems to think that "calling him on his bullshit" == "lack of reading comprehension."

It does seem strange that I should often conflate the two, considering the thoughtful, well-reasoned responses I so regularly receive. Just look at these fine examples!

By the way, what the hell is "casual dating" supposed to be, anyway? I get puzzled when all the personal sites distinguish between the goals of "dating" and "serious relationship" -- everyone always checks both, anyway, but I guess someone other than Vox Day thinks in those terms.

Pandagon has quite the high IQ set, don't they? Let me try to explain. Casual dating is an ongoing romantic relationship with someone in whom you have no real expectation of a permanent relationship. If you see no point in introducing your boyfriend or girlfriend to your parents, or even bothering to mention their existence, you are probably engaged in casual dating.

Good luck with that - I just went to Amazon to check out what he'd written, but oh dear, no entries. Must be self-published, then, I guess ...

Okay, the average IQ there must be even lower than I thought.

"It's my experience that women are less willing to marry in their early 20s than men are, since a woman has far more dating opportunities at this age (or at least an easier time of it)."

Apparently this poor soul missed the point about how a woman's prospects narrow with age, while men's tend to widen. That, or he doesn't understand how the two concepts might relate.

I had no idea that politics and geography were 'less academically rigorous' subjects than computer science.

Oh dear. And this is from a woman studying physics. No doubt, like that professor at the University of Minnesota foolishly cited by one of the Electrolyte crowd, this commenter will wind up using her astrophysics BA to teach Lesbianism in Hindu Film for a Women Studies program.

On choosing one's cards wisely

Amanda fears white slavery:

I mulled over and mulled over this nauseating article by Vox Day where he makes a list of things women must do if they want to get married, a list that is so disturbing by the end of it I'm worried about my female friends that are married, even though I know for a fact they pretty much have lived their entire lives differently from how they were instructed by Vox--as far as I know, that is. There was that real worry--are their generally normal and kind-seeming husbands reallly crazy Mormon-style patriarchs with a backroom full of child brides? Married women I know seem to have education and jobs--I swear I've even seen some read and write!--but apparently, that can't be true since those things screw your chances from day one. But then I realized that my real problem with his essay wasn't even the batshit craziness of it. It was the fact that he thinks that women looking at marriage don't do a cost-benefit analysis.

Yes, Amanda, because most executives with economics degrees are unfamiliar with cost-benefit analysis. Brilliant stuff. Indeed, Amanda betrays her own apparent unfamiliarity with the basic economic concept of opportunity cost. None of my advice was intended for women who want to devote their lives to themselves and their cats, it was for women who desire marriage and children and do not understand how they have been misled by the Sisterhood into risking their opportunity to have both. Except for a few of the long-term demographic implications, I quite like how a significant percentage of feminist professionals have turned themselves into evolutionary dead-ends.

Of course, it goes without saying that Vox's other problem is thinking that all men require that their mates be cringing, invisible, miserable child brides. That's demonstrably not true, but even if it were, it is silly to think that with 99% of women opting out, men wouldn't be slightly willing to compromise in order to at least get laid. But I think I know why Vox is so insistent on pretending that it's only women that want and need companionship and that men have to offer nothing in return on relationships. It's all about the money, baby.

Yes, it's shocking to assert that most women do prefer high status men, as they have throughout all of human history. Spacebunny is not cringing, invisible or miserable, indeed, she is a beautiful and cultured woman in whose presence Amanda would surely be all but invisible. A lack of desire for a career-focused bitch who can't find the time to go to the gym or bear your children is no indication of a desire for a female slave of any color. It's also interesting to note that Amanda considers women between the ages of 18 and 25 to be "child brides". I would imagine this is because she's still a child herself, intellectually speaking.

As most of you probably know by now, the supposed "libertarian" Vox Day is actually a spoiled rich brat named [Tom Riddle]. And of course he's never had to work hard for a day in his life--the delusion that one could be completely self-reliant in a libertarian paradise pretty much requires that you've never had to rely on yourself for anything, or it would fall to pieces. But the important thing to remember here is that [Riddle] is rich as shit, and he's rich in a society where those rare women willing to trade in complete submission for marriage go to the highest bidder. You everyday misogynist slobs who listen to Vox's bullshit about what you supposedly deserve and will get from a woman--cringing servitude--pay very close attention. Vox can buy that sort of self-hating woman. You can't.

This is amusing. First, the notion that honesty, the application of logic and the direct pursuit of one's priorities amounts to cringing servitude explains everything you need to know about Amanda's childish rage and bitterness. Second, if Amanda or any of my other critics had actually done any digging instead of relying on the information of someone who falsely claimed to be working for me, they'd have come across an article written in the early 1990's by Mike Wechsler of Computer Gaming World, wherein two individuals are credited with developing the concept of using 3D CAD hardware to accelerate computer game software. One of those names is Chris Taylor of Microsoft (formerly Electronic Arts), and the other is the aforementioned [Tom Riddle]. More digging would reveal that the second name is also the original holder of the "3D Blaster" trademark.

I may not have done as well as another innovator from that era, my erstwhile rival Jensen Huang, but I did well enough, thank you very much. You see, the greatest earthly inheritance one can receive from a financially successful father is not money, it is the knowledge of how to go about building one's own wealth.

It's unfortunate, but unsurprising, that Amanda cannot understand I am not a secretly Republican social conservative, but a true libertarian instead. Not once have I advocated laws to control the social behavior of anyone, male or female; that sort of thing falls within the paradigm of feminist neofascists like Amanda. And as a libertarian, I'm pretty much indifferent to the ironic reality that some of those young women who read last week's column will prefer to take advice on life and marriage from an unmarried feminist "cum-guzzling boozehound" instead of me. Fate can be unfair, to be sure, but more often than not we end up living the life we chose.

Free speech in America

Toledo residents manage to get outsmarted by Nazi morons:

A crowd protesting a white supremacists' march Saturday turned violent, throwing baseball-sized rocks at police, vandalizing vehicles and stores, and setting fire to a neighborhood bar, authorities said.

When Mayor Jack Ford and a local minister tried to calm the rioting, they were cursed for allowing the march, and Ford said a masked gang member threatened to shoot him. At least 65 people were arrested and several police officers were injured before calm was restored about four hours later.

If you ever want to develop past a child's understanding of the universe, you absolutely need to understand that when it comes to human relations, it is entirely possible for both parties to a dispute to be hopelessly wrong. Sometimes, even most of the time, there are no good guys.

"'It's exactly what they wanted,' Ford said of the group that planned the march". Gee, do you think so? Because personally, I know I always tend to think more highly of people who go berserk and burn things because they don't like what someone else is saying.

Toast with just a schmiers

Ramesh Ponnuru writes on NRO's Corner:

Speaking of Republican strategists, another one spoke to me the other day. I asked him what Republicans could do to bounce back, and he had three suggestions.

The first was for the president to "stop going to New Orleans."

The second was that Republicans needed to find a way to go on offense on taxes

The third was that Miers withdraw her nomination.

And so the momentum builds.... Also on The Corner, Jon Podhoretz notes that this praise for Miers comes from the TalkLeft blog:

Most of those I've spoken with believe she will be okay or better as a Supreme Court Justice. While she may be more conservative than many of us, all thought she would be fair. No one can recall a single instance of her talking about abortion or Roe v. Wade.... The main thing to keep in mind are the alternatives. From a legal standpoint, we lucked out with both Roberts and Harriet Miers. If she were to withdraw and Bush were then to repay the radical right what they think he owes them, we will be far worse off.

Hea culpa

Joseph Farah demonstrates the fortitude to openly admit past errors:

My instincts were right back in 2004.

I should not have pulled the lever for George W. Bush and I should never have urged others to do so. Even my wife, who coaxed me to break my vow never to support a candidate who doesn't honor the Constitution, agrees now it was a mistake.

Without making more excuses, all I can say for myself was that I was so moved by the action of the Swiftboat Vets and their righteous campaign against traitor John Kerry, my emotions got the best of me.

I lost my head. I was not true to the promise in my own book, "Taking America Back," just out in paperback, to avoid supporting the lesser of two evils, to avoid making insidious compromises in electoral politics, to avoid, at all costs, supporting politicians who do not understand and abide by the Constitution.

Mr. Farah is a good man, and I'm pleased that he's decided to face the facts. I admire anyone who has the courage to shake their head, admit that they got it wrong and try to learn the appropriate lesson.

In wistful perspective

I always find it interesting how the Constitution and unalienable rights endowed by the Creator have to be "put in perspective". Or how violations of them have to be "understood in context" of the surrounding events.

That's just weasel talk for justifying the evasion of the limits on the government by the government. Which has happened in the past and will happen in the future, until those rights are noteworthy only for their absence.

It would be nice if just one government, somewhere in the world, was truly dedicated to the rights of the individual instead of constantly attempting to manufacture a thousand thousand reasons to limit, work around and eliminate them. Just one. All the security wet-blankets, the social net neo-Marxists, the power-mad bureaucrats and the respect-through-legislation women can have the rest of them, as far as I'm concerned. Just one, is that too much to ask for? Apparently.

I would live there.

Racists, racists everywhere

Sinewave demonstrates his successfully indocrination by the PC crowd:

OK, I'm going to slammed for this, but here it goes. I feel using "me-so" in Michelle's name is racist.

She is ditzy and pompous, but I don't believe a tramp.

The "Me-so" title implies she is a whore from SE Asia. I assume your using it becasue she's of Asian descent.

Feel however you like. Of course, by this definition, any reference whatsoever to an individual's race is racist. But Dictionary.com defines racism thusly:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Does lableling an Asian woman "Me So Michelle" indicate a belief that her demonstrably low level of intellectual character is based on her being Asian? Does it even state anything about her ability at all? No. Does it amount to discrimination or prejudice? Again, no. If I were regularly referring to all Asian women in this manner, then one might have a case, but this is clearly not so and the basis for my disregard for this particular Asian woman should be fairly well established by now as one that has everything to do with the content of her character, not the color of her skin.

I do quite enjoy applying infelicitous appellations, and Michelle Malkin's not only refers to her being a metaphorical prostitute - only Bill O'Reilly more richly deserves the title of media whore - but also refers to her insistence on thrusting herself into the middle of whatever issue is currently topping the news cycle. And the metaphor works very well indeed; I am always amused by one of the ways in which bloggers regularly refer to her:

OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY BOMBER
“It looks like Michelle Malkin is on top of it.”
October 7, 2005
Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online

TOM DELAY INDICTED
“Michelle Malkin is all over it”
September 28, 2005
Badger Blogger

AIR AMERICA SCANDAL
“Michelle Malkin is all over it.”
August 3, 2005
Spartac.us

BUSH WILL ANNOUNCE NOMINEE IN PRIME TIME
“President Bush has made up his mind! And he will announce his nomineee for Supreme Court Justice tonight. Should be interesting. Michelle Malkin is all over it.”
July 19, 2005
Strange Things Afoot

There's a word for women who make a career of draping themselves all over everything, is there not? And what is that word, it seems to be escaping me just at the moment?

Now, I will readily admit to having a serious problem with Malkin, just as I do with Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Ben Shapiro, Frank Rich, Susan Estrich, Maureen Dowd and Sean Hannity. My problem is that people take these ludicrious charlatans seriously, when they would be much better off paying attention to the John Derbyshires, Jonah Goldbergs, Ramesh Ponnurus, Pat Buchanans, George Wills, Eric Altermans and Ann Coulters of the world. Even when the latter sort are wrong - and they often are - at least they attempt to be intellectually honest when they go about making their arguments.

More Me So Moronics

Charles Lofgren reviews Malkin's travesty for the Claremont Institute:

The brunt of criticism has fallen on Malkin's claims about the relocation as a response to a military threat perceived as real at the time. Unfortunately, she does not carefully sort out what was known at the time from what was not. One of Malkin's blogger critics quickly observed that the Japanese submarine's shelling of the oil field near Santa Barbara on February 23, 1942, could hardly have been a factor in the key decisions of the preceding several weeks. In response*, Malkin noted that she had linked the shelling to the speeded-up evacuation of Terminal Island on February 25. This comes about 80 pages later.

Similar difficulties are explained away less easily. After describing the shelling episode, Malkin turns to Japanese operations in the Pacific immediately after Pearl Harbor and to Secretary Stimson's fear of raids against the American mainland. The reader then learns that Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi, a Japanese naval commander, had precisely this in mind. Relegated to a footnote is Malkin's qualification that the source from which she drew the episode "states that other Japanese officers were unenthusiastic about Yamaguchi's plan." She does not mention at all that Yamaguchi presented his plan at a conference on February 20-23, 1942, on board a Japanese battleship. Did Yamaguchi's plan help shape American thinking relating to the evacuation? Could it have? One suspects not. (Malkin covers herself, perhaps, by noting that similar ideas circulated in the Japanese media.)

Another problem of sequence emerges when the reader learns "[i]n the Philippines, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and statesman Carlos Romulo described massive Japanese espionage activity in the country prior to the war." Malkin then provides several details. The source is a book by Romulo, one written and published following his arrival in the United States in June 1942. A bit further on, as added evidence for why Americans in late 1941 and early 1942 could reasonably have worried about the enemy in their midst, the reader learns that "Japan's surrender in 1945 came as a traumatic blow to many Hawaiian Issei," and that Tomoya Kawakita, a Nisei who served in Japan's army, "tortured scores of American POW's held in a Japanese prison camp." The torture occurred during the war, of course, and Kawakita was exposed after the war once he returned to Los Angeles.

The reviewer's reference to "the brunt of criticism" is interesting considering that none of the debates in which Malkin was willing to engage had anything to do with the military threat. That was the issue I raised, the one that Malkin was willing to lie rather than address in any way.

And for all that Yamaguchi might have had the bright idea to engage in a stupid, risky and pointless series of raids, the USN's post-war interviews with other Japanese admirals demonstrate very clearly that his superiors, including Admiral Yamamoto, had no intention of invading Hawaii, let alone the American West Coast. As I have demonstrated, even a successful and costless series of raids could not have slowed down the American war effort by a single day, let alone "crippled" it as Malkin ludicrously asserted.

It is a pity that the reviewer did not see fit to mention how Malkin not only demonstrates a near-complete ignorance of a) military logistics, b) American war plans, c) basic Naval details (she not only halved the number of American aircraft carriers, but didn't know where any of them were in early 1942) and d) post-Pearl Harbor naval movements and theatre priorities, but a singular in ability to reason logically in asserting a proof of military necessity based on Secretary of War Stinson's post-war comments. Since Stinson was arguably one of the primary players in the internment order, Malkin is simply engaging in circular reasoning.

Amusingly enough, the Malkin defender cited by Powerline in Me So's defense follows her lead in failing to address any of these points, preferring instead to engage in what-if scenarios. But I'm quite pleased that others are finally noticing the gaping hole in Malkin's moronic thesis, as Lofgren finally concludes:

"Indeed, Malkin never quite brings together the argument that for the decision-makers in Washington, D.C., military necessity, as inferred from sources known at the time, was the reason for the indiscriminate mass evacuation that actually occurred."

Exactly. Although I would tend to agree with Ken Masugi in saying that "needlessly inaccurate" isn't really fair to the book. "Wildly inaccurate and nonsensically amateurish" would be more precise, in my opinion.

*This is why I despise Malkin. She simply can't admit that she's wrong. Whenever she's exposed, her immediate reaction is to lie. At least the leftist lunatics usually have the excuse of genuinely not having a clue.

The teaching moment

Crom hits a girl:

Regarding the Jolie v. Pitt matchup it's ridiculous to think that she would even stand a chance. I am a mid-level combat hapkido student and when I recently sparred a black-belt female it was a joke. She was more talented in her movements, but if I hadn't have pulled my punches I would have broken her. By the end of the three minutes she was not pulling anything, and I still was holding back.
She was furious at the end of the match, and said that in a tournament she would have been the victor. I replied that in a tournament, yes - but on the street she would have been stomped.

This is typical of the attitude of both women and men who are only trained to tournament fight. It bears no more resemblance to actual physical combat than modern fencing does to the armored brawls that characterized medieval combat.

There were no such point fighters at my dojo, as it was not only the most notoriously brutal fighting school in the Twin Cities but the only one to ever sweep all the first-places in a major tournament, from gold to black. However, on the few occasions I did run into a woman sporting this kind of attitude, I simply smashed right through her defenses and dropped her. Do this twice in a row and either they'll lose the attitude and ask what they can do to try and defend themselves - which is usually what happens - or else they'll pretend to be hurt and quit for the day.

Most martial arts schools do their students a real disservice by failing to allow them to spar properly. Techniques are great, but they're only one part of the equation. Speed, power, fitness and general toughness are all important elements of unarmed combat and they vary in importance depending on the specific opponent.

A wrestler will almost always beat a tae kwon do kicker, as will a boxer. But both boxers and wrestlers are very vulnerable to judo and akido moves, and nobody matches up well with kali fighters except the manics who do the real muey thai, not the watered-down American kickboxing version. There is no magical one set of techniques that can guarantee victory over anyone, it's simply a matter of increasing your probabilities of success given what you have to work with.

All the skill and technique in the world don't matter much if your opponent whacks you over the head from behind with a baseball bat, is so much stronger than you that your blocking limbs get broken or is so much faster that you don't even see the blows coming. Women who train but don't fight hard contact simply don't understand how great their speed and power deficiency is until it is demonstrated to them in a manner they cannot help but understand.

As my instructor said when he helped me up off the floor after completely failing to pull his punches: "You were getting careless, so I felt that it was a teaching moment."

The faith of the SF writer

From James P. Hogan's THE GENESIS MACHINE:

The Aub that Clifford grew to know better during this time turned out to be even better than his first impressions had suggested. Like Clifford, he was preoccupied, almost obsessed, with a compulsive urge to add further to the stock of human scientific knowledge; he had no political persuasions and few ideological beliefs, certainly none that could be classed as part of any recognizable formal system. He accepted as so self-evident that it was not worthy of debate the axiom that only the harnessing of knowledge to create universal wealth and security could provide a permanent solution to the world's problems. It was not, however, the desire to discharge any moral obligation to the rest of humanity that spurred him Onward; it was simply his insatiable curiosity and the need to exercise his own extraordinary inventive abilities.

Actually, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is not exactly a new or aspiritual concept. The fact that adding to the stock of human scientific knowledge is what one wilts doesn't change the fact that as described here, it is an entirely selfish exercise and however desirable it might be in comparison with another who wilts genocide or forced sexual pleasure derived by the use of violence and physical strength, it hails from the same ethical source.

Indeed, the notion that knowledge - for which "education" appears to be considered an adequate substitute, if not wholly synonymous - will provide a permanent solution has become a veritable religion of its own. It is a faith every bit as blind as the Communist religion; although it lacks a single, extraordinary prophet it does have a handy priesthood in the secular SF-writing community.

Handicapped by their youthful social inadequacies, this fairly intelligent group of people nevertheless can be depended upon to get it wildly wrong whenever it comes to the basics of human interaction. This is not only why their futuristic techno-utopias are usually designed to mimic economic and political models which are already defunct, but why their sex scenes are unspeakable disasters so clumsy as to make romance novels look sophisticated. The reason that the woman always takes the sexual initiative in an SF novel is that the overweight wallflower who has written the book cannot for the life of him imagine how one would even begin to go about seducing a woman.

The SF-writing community sometimes reminds me of the journalism crowd, another group notoriously bad at self-examination. They are smug in their certainty that they have no ideology, even as they go about the act of propagandistically furthering the supposedly non-existent beast.

As predicted, the Miers nomination is toast

From Drudge:

The DRUDGE REPORT can now reveal that not only did Harriet Miers testify that she would not join the “politically charged” Federalist Society -- she testified that she had joined a liberal organization – the Democratic Progressive Voters League.

[According to the Handbook of Texas Online [http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/DD/wed1.html], the Democratic Progressive Voters League is a Dallas political organization closely associated with the Democratic Party.]

Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.”

Her answer: “No, I don’t.”

Adios, Miss Harriet.

Air America and the Fraters undercard

Witrack emails to inform me that someone named Stephanie Miller is a big fan:

Stephanie Miller mentioned, or rather read and made fun of your latest article on KTLA 1150, an Air America station.

She called it "dating tips from a skinhead". And they said you probably live in your mother's basement, etc. It wasn't really that funny when they talked about it, to me anyway.

Just thought you'd like to know that you have now hit the big time, being mentioned Air America!

It seems Witrack and I have divergent opinions on hitting the big time.... I've never heard of this woman before, but I'm guessing that Miss Miller is a strong and independent liberal thirty-something career woman with a communications degree from a third-rate university who doesn't have children and loves cats. Now, I don't actually know anything about her since I don't listen to talk radio, but what are the odds that I'm completely wrong? Two percent, maybe three? If anyone's inclined, look it up and see if I'm right.

Anyhow, Chad the Elder and the Fraters Libertas gang will be pleased. They can now add Vox Day vs Stephanie Miller to their proposed Northern Alliance - Air America rumble.

And then it occurs to me. Witrack, my friend, what on Earth are you doing listening to Air America? Is it even supposed to be funny?

UPDATE: Witrack says that you can probably hear it tomorrow, if you're so inclined, here. Let me know if they say anything interesting.

The second rock falls

Mr. Joseph Farah affirms my Monday prediction regarding Creepy McCrypto:

Most of the attention on the nomination so far has focused on her lack of experience, her track record, her opinions on abortion, etc.

But the silver bullet that will do in the nominee is her cozy relationship with Bush – one that likely placed her in a position of covering up scandals in the Texas Lottery to keep secret the preferential treatment the president received as a young man to enter the Texas Air National Guard.

All it will take is a subpoena or two to get the whole sordid story on the public record – in front of a national television audience.

I don't think George W. Bush, already experiencing unfavorable public opinion ratings, will allow that to happen.

Mr. Farah's sources are much better than mine - especially since he's in DC doing the talk radio thing while my connections consist solely of my synapses - but it's interesting that he is reaching the same conclusion.

It's a mystery

I just can't figure out why the Pan-Gargler would think that soccer players tend to be a bit fruity.

Nevertheless, I'm still optimistic about the upcoming World Cup. I think a semifinals appearance is possible, if not likely. But we should be able to get past the group stage, which would be nice.

Mailvox: Undsoweiter

KS informs us that she possesses a 130+ IQ and reading comprehension problems:

I am rather disappointed that you would mandate a woman of my age, 18, to start looking for a mate immediately for the sole purpose of producing children, whereas you issue a caveat to young men to stay single. You tell us women on World Net Daily, " Remember, your choices narrow as you get older, while men's choices broaden," because, apparently, once we are no longer young and fertile, we are no longer of any value to the opposite sex. I suppose when your wife hits menopause, you will immediately begin hunting for a younger mate.

Yes, once a woman is no longer young and fertile, she is completely useless for having children, except in a professional capacity as a doctor, midwife or fertility technician. If having children was my foremost priority, I would certainly replace a post-menopausal or barren wife for one capable of bearing children. But what does any of that have to do with Monday's column or the subsequent discussion?

KS reveals a haphazard manner of thinking all too typical of today's youth, conflating narrowing choices with a complete lack of value and failing to note the obvious caveats applying to the two columns in question. Furthermore, she either reveals the female tendency towards totalitarianism in confusing individual observations with an order by an authority figure or she does not understand the word "mandate".

You instruct us not to flirt, or bait-and-switch. " Unlike their female counterparts, men who say they don't want to get married or have kids usually mean it." You seem to think it is fine for men to not want children or marriage, but not for women. If it is our biological purpose as women to bear children, shouldn't all men also fulfill their biological purpose in providing the other 23 chromosomes and, oh dear, a feminist thought, perhaps share in the responsibilities of raising children?

First, I never mentioned anything about flirting, second, does KS seriously wish to argue that it is ethical or effective for women to engage in bait-and-switch tactics? And while it would be demographically desirable for young men to harbor more interest in marriage and children, the evidence suggests that the lack of such interest is primarily a symptom caused by the construction of the Equalitarian Society, its quasi-legal courts and masculinized women. One cannot cure the disease by treating the symptoms and ignoring the cause. There's more sloppy thinking here, as it is not possible for men to share in the responsibilities of bearing children, which is the subject at hand. Men have always shared in the responsibilities of raising children, unless one redefines the activity as excluding the provision of food, shelter and protection.

According to you, we should "settle earlier rather than later." I resent the fact that you even use the term "settle." It gives me the impression that you do not think we have a right to search for a decent human being beyond our peak reproductive age, so long as he provides viable sperm, he will do.

A resentful woman, imagine that! Again, KS confuses individual opinion and biological realities with the force of law. You have the right to do whatever you want. If you want to collect cats, go for it. But you will settle, sooner or later, because The Perfect Man does not exist. There is always an opportunity cost, even if you make the best of all possible choices.

Indeed, in my opinion, the job of mother is the most difficult on the face of this earth, and many women are not equipped to fulfill it, especially if they follow your advice and bear children before 25, before they have had time to experience the world beyond their parents' homes. This is why I am uncertain as to whether I want children. I would love to have them, but I am not sure if I would do as amazing a job that my mother did with me and my siblings. And may I point out that the tradition of marriage used to be a father selling his daughters in order to improve his connections, wealth, and status. As if his female children were livestock, ommodities to bring him material gain.

Here KS makes a remarkably stupid statement. The job of mother is one of the easiest jobs on the face of this earth and trillions of women have successfully performed it. About the only easier job is that of father. The fact that they are uniquely necessary jobs does not make them complex, dangerous or hard to do.

As for the tradition of women being regarded as commodities, if KS and other young women elect to continue following the equalitarian precepts of the Sisterhood, I think we can just about guarantee that the West will see a revival of the practice within 100 years.

Mailvox: a pleasant surprise

RL asks some interesting questions:

Allow me to turn that question around. If you also believe that Western Civilization is the best and brightest, then why are you so quick predict its demise?

Are there any actual historic examples of an entire civilization, any civilization (not a kingdom, empire, or country), completely disappearing from the face of the earth because they stopped reproducing enough?

I think I'll address the first question tomorrow, because I'd prefer to do so in more detail than I feel like ripping off right now. But as to the latter, that's a bit of a difficult question.

First, because any civilization which has become defunct is, by definition, not around now, so we don't necessarily know what happened to it. For example, historians have a few theories about why the Etruscans were wiped out by the Romans, but we don't actually know.

Second, a civilization which becomes demographically vulnerable is seldom left in peace to vanish in silence. Indeed, among the various aspects of a decadent culture is an declining inclination to reproduce. But humans, like nature, appear to abhor a vaccuum, especially if there's perfectly good land and other resources available for the taking.

If one examines the case of Italy, the immigrant population has grown from 156,179 of 54.1 million in 1971 to an estimated 3.8 million of 58.5 million in 2004. So the population appears stable, even if the percentage of Italians is falling. But the real problem is that in 1971, the birth rate was above the replacement rate of 2.1, now it is well below it, at 1.17. So, the trend is going to increase rapidly and the declining number of children is already readily apparent to anyone visiting an Italian city.

Lest anyone think that pointing out these obvious trends is only a concern of the right wing seeking a return to the Dark Ages of the 1950s, I note the following:

"the anthropologist and writer Ida Magli has a more controversial view of why Italy's fertility rate is falling. She says: "No one wants to say the truth--that Italian women don't want to be mothers. In this country, there is no help for a mother with a child. So maternity destroys her chances of working and realising herself."

Mailvox: a few reasons

RL asks, we answer:

What I took issue with was his thinnly veiled assertion that the history and biology made it right and that women should just accept their position as cows.

"It's been that way for millions of years, and only just the last few decades have people like you begun to believe differently." - George.

My example with the king was showing how most people on this site, I strongly suspect, wouldn't agree with that line of reasoning if applied to other areas of longstanding (but generally overturned in modern times) historical precedent. Thus, why should women necessarily accept their biological and historical position?

1. Because the human race will end if they do not accept their biological position. Women, to their credit, are not indifferent to this, as the fear of nuclear war and global warming shows. Nevertheless, it is the Western woman's refusal to accept the biological demands which God/Nature/evolution has placed on them that is on the verge of guaranteeing the loss of every so-called advance that women today currently cherish. As we are already seeing in Europe, if a society becomes insufficiently interested in sustaining itself for whatever reason, other societies will readily move in to replace it. This is not exactly a new phenomenon.

2. Since very few women are both interested in and capable of a productive career in theoretical or applied sciences, any prospective technological solutions would likely be primarily dependent upon men. As I alluded in my column yesterday, a brave new technological world is just as likely to degrade women's position in society as it is to enhance it, if not more so.

3. Because women are biologically disadvantaged and will always be personally vulnerable to individual male power and aggresiveness. This is one reason why the serious gender feminists push lesbianism. Without completely breaking all contact with men, it is impossible for a woman to maintain a position of superior power without the tacit acceptance of the men supporting her.

As for questions of right and wrong, that obviously depends on your perspective. The West's Judeo-Christian cultural tradition clearly indicates that women have a duty to accept their special position, which is not a bovine one but rather one of supreme importance. If one rejects that, as many obviously do, then one cannot really make any judgment on the matter without first defining the morality with which one is doing so.

A lizard on the Cherry Blossom Throne

The retirement gap
By Teresa Heinz
October 8, 2005
The Boston Globe

Isn't it interesting how a feminist always feels the need to pretend that she's a normal, heterosexual, married woman when her partner-in-crime is running for office? Or, for that matter, when she is. If feminists were actually mainstream, normal women would instead be surreptitiously dropping their married names when in the public eye.

That's why it amuses me when people talk about a second President Clinton. If the Lizard Queen gets elected - and she may well - I expect her to announce that she'd prefer to be addressed as President Rodham by mid-November 2011.

That's if we're lucky. If we're not, we'll be publicly confessing our sins against Her Reptilian Majesty prior to being carted off in the tumbrils.

So much for assimilation

Study Finds Fertility Is Higher Here than in Home Countries;
Illegal Aliens Have Birthrates 50% Higher than Native-Born

WASHINGTON (October 12, 2005) -- A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that women from the top ten immigrant-sending countries collectively have higher fertility than women in their home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23 percent more children than women in their home countries....

* In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top 10 immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries -- a 23-percent difference.

* Mexico immigrants in the U.S., for example, had 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children for women in Mexico. Among Chinese immigrant fertility is 2.3 in the U.S. compared to 1.7 in China, and immigrants from Canada have 1.9 children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.

I'm just wondering what is the point of sending young women to college if afterwards they are still too clueless to grasp the probability that children raised by non-English speaking immigrants from unfree countries are not exactly likely to share the preferences - from food to form of government - of those they are expected to replace.

I mean, if you can't figure that out, just what benefit are you likely to offer society anyhow?

What Bear and others who point to the melting pot of yore don't seem to have considered is how modern communications and travel technology now obviates the need for immigrants to adapt to their new home. Believe me, you can live almost anywhere in the world and as long as you have a satellite and an Internet connection, you wouldn't even realize you were on a different continent unless you left the house.

Immigrants now face a choice to abandon their cultural traditions or to maintain them, and it increasingly appears that they are electing to retain them. It's worth noting that "the rights of Englishmen" have never been instilled anywhere except by force; they will not likely be preserved here by those who have no interest or traditional connection to them.

Mailvox: the dialogue continues

M writes back, and interestingly enough, declines to declare her major:

As for your opening gambits, your beef seems to be more with women focusing on education at all, not what kind they get. So if I answered "Neuroscience" or "Engineering”, what I could expect to get is the same as if I said “Philosophy” or “International Relations”. In short, you already answered your own question: “It will make you very employable, I'm sure.” While categorizing all of your critics into either “frothing feminists” or “ignorati” is pretty much unworthy, I can’t really blame you when people come out with “I’m an exception to your article because I’m ________ degree and so cool.”

First, it's not that all of my critics are frothing feminists or ignorati, it's just that the vast majority of them demonstrate serious reading comprehension problems, an inability to see the forest for the trees or an unshakeable allegiance to feminist dogma even when it flies in the face of demonstrable reality. As anyone who read the Fark comments knows, there wasn't a single substantive critique in the lot. I'm always quite happy to engage a serious critic, unfortunately they are very few and far between.

Second, very few men or women realize that "education" is largely a crock. I speak two foreign languages, one of which I learned in high school. While I do not speak the language I studied in college and for which I received a major from an expensive private university, I am quite comfortable in a language in which I have never been "educated". Education is not wholly synonymous with learning and a degree is not proof of knowledge, let alone proven expertise.

Furthermore, most college educations are completely wasted. Except in the most demanding technical fields, one's career seldom bears much relation to one's education in the United States. It is very different in Europe, where the educational tracks are guided, but here in the States I'd be surprised if 5 percent of the countless Sociology, Women's Studies and International Relations majors ever spend a single year working in a job that is even tangentially related to those academic fields.

And for this it's worth sacrificing marriage, children and the Western cultural tradition? Some might think so. I disagree.

What I’m more interested in at the moment is where you left the other half of your argument, and why. Statistics don’t show that we’re in the middle of a population crisis here. In fact, the situation is just the opposite. The birth rate for natives is a little above replacement, and that is admittedly mostly due to the national emphasis on education and career rather than family during the most fertile years of our lives. This is true of most developed countries, with the US at a 2.1 fertility rate, and most European countries hovering between 1.2 and 2.0. However, in the US, the rate of replacement due to immigration (and high immigrant fertility rates, both legal and illegal) more than makes up for our close call on the native fertility scales. This has become a big political issue in the past decade because immigrants are ceasing to absorb into our society, learn our language, etc. Therefore, I can really only come to the conclusion that you left the other half of your argument behind… that you are not calling for women to have more babies, you are calling for white women to have more babies. If you wanted to seem more PC, you would say native women or “US citizens”. I’m somewhat curious as to why you are so willing to be branded a misogynist, but hang back from the racist brand.

I don't know how accurate that last sentence is, considering that more than a few commenters here and on Fark weren't shy about applying the racist label. To which I can only say that if that were true, I would imagine that my career as a NCAA D1 100m sprinter would have been a lot more difficult, given that it's not exactly a massive Caucasian's club.*

And while I don't care greatly about the color of the babies of tomorrow, I am very much concerned with who is having them. As Europe is learning, third-world immigrants from countries which have not had the benefit of 500 years of the Western tradition are not an adequate substitute for native-born citizens who have. Even from the liberal point of view, is an illiterate Argentine who is more familiar with Peron than George Washington really an adequate substitute for a female Boston Brahmin who teaches political geography at Harvard?

Isn't it at least possible that importing a significant percentage of people with no cultural tradition of free speech, limited government or even monogamous marriage just might have some effect on Western countries' ability to continue their traditions? In Britain, for example, not only Piglet but even the Cross of St. George - the national symbol - is being banned in public due to immigrant sensitivities.

This is precisely why I have asserted that the Equalitarian Society will come to an end in the intermediate future. It simply isn't sustainable, not even by its own lights.

*A few years ago, I was working out with free weights in Washington DC with three giant bodybuilders. They were black and they were freaking enormous, doing leg presses with six (6!) 45-pound plates per side. I was going through my martial arts phase at the time and my head was shaved clean, which led the biggest guy to ask why it was shaved - while I was on the bench with 285 pounds over my throat and he was spotting me.

"White supremacist" I told him. "Now let go of the damn bar!" He correctly grasped the sarcasm in the situation, burst out laughing and finally took his hands off. This was necessary because he was the worst spotter ever. I think I did twelve or thirteen reps that set because Mr. Ebon Steroid Freak was curling ninety percent of the weight for the first ten.

In case you're interested

I'll be on Jim Richards Show on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB Toronto at 8:35 PM. If it's like the last time I was on that station, it should be good humor. Toronto apparently has no shortage of feminist lunatics frothing at the mouth there and they seem to enjoy using me as the sharp stick with which to poke them.

No idea if they have a webcast or not.

Blogfodder: Creepy McCryptopolis

Mellochic advocates blatant dishonesty and gold-digging:

Wow.... I feel like my sarcastic commentary can't really do this column justice. This whole article is crap. I mean... picture this... you're out on your first date with someone, and you start talking about how much you want to get married and have lots of kids. Now, if that doesn't scare them off.... Creepy McCrypto? Yeah... why didn't I drop out of high school to make babies with worthless future janitors of america? Damn... guess I'll have to settle with my chemical engineering degree and reconcile myself to an awesome Ivy-League boyfriend. What was I thinking?

Let's see, a girl with a chemical engineering degree dating a guy from the Ivy League... yes, actually, the image of Creepy McCrypto does tend to spring to mind. Note, too, how future janitors are "worthless" but the mere fact of attending the Ivy League makes a man "awesome".

Now, I'm not saying she's a golddigger, but... you know the rest. The bit about scaring them off would be funny if it wasn't so sad... Mellochic tacitly admits her desire for marriage and children while managing to miss the entire point of the exercise, which is for a woman who desires children to winnow out those men who will be scared off so she can focus her attention on those who aren't. As for the whole article being crap, if it were not for some minor points of grammar and punctuation, it would be hard to improve on this gentleman's take:

"Why, yes, the easiest way to get married and have children is to have meaningless casual overnight sex, work 60 hour jobs after 5 years of college, tell men you never want to marry or have kids, stay in long term relationships with guys that hate children and don't want them, and ignoring obvious faults in men they date for the sake of converting him later, and try to make no logical sense in choosing a partner.. yes.. THAT is the best path to take."

As for Creepy McCrypto herself, allow me to make a prediction. Her nomination will not even make it to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mailvox: SmartPop is good for you

Czja's brain doesn't melt down despite slogging through THE DICHOTOMOUS SUBVERSIVE:

I read your chapter in The Anthology at the End of the World. As I just said over at Ranting Room, I have put off reading this not because I wasn't curious, but because I don't know the first thing about Hitchhiker and I wanted to familiarize myself with that before picking up the Anthology. I'm glad I didn't wait any longer because it is not necessary to have read Hitchhiker in order to enjoy your analysis - although I'm sure it would be much more meaningful if you did.

You are extremely fun to read no matter what the topic.You really have that in your corner. The hypothetical you posited about Thatcher and Friedman was hysterical and set up your analysis - or whatever you call it - well. I thought it was excellent to get a defence of limited government out of a S.F. book. I wonder, were you chosen, because of your political columns, to write about that particular aspect of Hitchhiker or did they give you an free reign and you decided to emphasize Adam's "libertarian" leanings on your own?

Thanks very much and all that. In answer to your question, I was originally contacted as an SFWA writer - even though my fellow members would almost surely vote me out if given half a chance - but I was given free reign to write about whatever I wanted, subject to the editor's approval. If you consider how Jacqueline Carey devoted her essay to assuring the reader that she gets English humor, it should be readily apparent that the bar is not an overly elevated one.

That being said, I'm rather pleased with how it turned out. The book's been out long enough that I'll post my essay here one of these days.

Mailvox: Fark you too

A panoply of comments, most consisting of the usual kneejerk drivel:

Bohemian: Now that we have the useless lousy advice from some nerdy fundie twit that probably can't get screwed in a hardware store...

CashMoneyGifford: I do not know a woman in the world who would let that creep dog near their no-no place.

Batting 1.000 so far. Criticize Sisterhood cant and the obvious conclusion is that the critic can't get laid. I suppose the only answer is to talk Spacebunny into releasing a sex tape.... Now, do we have Mensa?

I'm glad to see a few other people laughing at his Mensa qualification. How can you be smart enough to get into Mensa, but dumb enough to regard it as an achievement? Mensa sells validation of one's intelligence, prepackaged intellectual stimulation, and help finding other smart people. The funny thing is, smart people generally don't those things. Mensa should be marketing to dullards, then - and who's to say they aren't?

Bingo. An identity outing?

I'm a member of SFWA, and I'm not seeing him in the 2004 member directory. (You would think the 2005 edition would have been out by now, but I'haven't seen it.)
Ah, wait. His real name is [Sweet Cthulhu, but you people are stupid... follow the Latin into Greek, it's a joke!], who is a SFWA member. Mystery solved.

And now the crowd is going wild! Three for four so far... can the Farkers bring it all the way home? YES!!!!! 19Cranes boldly steps up to the plate and knocks it out of the farking park!

19Cranes: Mr. Vox Day badly needs a cockpunching. I can't even bring myself to take apart his arguments, because they're just so infuriating.

Four for four! S/he could do it, but s/he won't. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the perfect feminista quadfecta! Congratulations to everyone who contributed and don't hesitate to fly again with us next time.

Mailvox: time is on his side

ZT is in no particular hurry:

What sucks is being the 20 something guy and look at all these silly women. "Oh I'll have children when I get to my 30's". I want to say "Good luck with that and make sure you have an incredibly good job to pay for the fertility clinic. I do love some of the looks I get when I tell a women I'm looking for a women between 18 and 26. I get older but that number stays the same. Not because I just love the sexy ladies (Which I do.) but because I want to have children.

Actually, I just had a conversation about this with The Perfect Aryan Male. He attended his high school's 20th year reunion last weekend and was commenting on how attractive he'd found one or two of his former classmates to be. Since he's single, I asked him if he intended to ask either of them out.

"Oh no, they're too old," was his immediate response. "I'd still like to have kids."

Now, keep in mind that TPAM was the senior lawyer for a two-billion dollar company until recently and is still one of its corporate directors, so he doesn't exactly find it terribly difficult to find dates. The conversation reminded me of the Sex In The City episode when Candace Bergren is angry at Sarah Jessica Parker for dating a man that is her age and she's forced to settle for a strange little man who looks rather like a turtle.

So, if the women aren't interested in marriage until they're at least 30, and 38 is too old, this leaves a fairly narrow window of opportunity for when the theoretically high-flying woman is going to find Mr. Perfect, marry him and bear his children.

Mailvox: the arrogance of the inexperienced

M writes, presumably from campus:

Thank you for educating all of us poor, confused, 20-somethings... I swear that for a few years I had no idea at all of what to do with my so-far-unused womb! I mean, what with getting a college education and dating, I totally took my eye off the ball. I could literally have missed my opportunity to get married at 16, be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen for a few years, pop out 4 or 5 rugrats, and get divorced and stuck with mouths to feed on no education by 26!

Ooh, a college education! That's really impressive! These days, it means one is capable of making it through "See Spot Run" without moving one's lips. I wonder what M's major might be, Sociology or International Relations? It will make her very employable, I'm sure.

Inexperienced little college girls are tremendously arrogant about the world until they run smack into the reality that they peaked in terms of their attractiveness to men between 18 and 22. It's all downhill from there, unfortunately, because unlike women, there isn't a man on the planet who cares that a prospective mate is an executive at HBO or has an MBA from Dartmouth. In fact, many intelligent and successful men would consider those things to be detrimental to any potential relationship.

But don't take my opinion for it, because it's worth noting that Maureen Dowd, the noted conservative and male chauvinist, wrote a column expressing her dismay at how men don't care about women's career accomplishments just a few months ago.

Meanwhile, RK doesn't seem to be terribly upset at having missed her chance to pick up a piece of paper before she hit her mid-twenties:

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your article 'Women! Someday Is Today!'. I am a 26-year-old married mother of 3 young children and blessed to be married to my husband. I had originally intended to go the "get-a-business-degree-apartment-living-suit-wearing-independent-woman route" after school, but the Lord made it clear that He had other plans when at 18, I met my husband at a band practice and he courted me with such gusto, I understood his sincere and self sacrificing love for me in a short matter of time. I never would have imagined myself with my husband per se, as he is not what I necessarily envisioned in my head when I was younger - but I did very much admire his mind, his wisdom, his kindness, his gentleness, talent and his strong faith. In a short matter of time, I also came to see him a romantic light. Fourteen months after we met we were married and have been happily so ever since.

I don't mean to sound self-righteous. I just wanted to emphasize that as a woman, I get so sick of the all too pervasive "Sex In The City" culture that is rapidly ruining the potential for many women out there to be truly healthy in their natural roles and I'm glad you spoke up about it.

And more from the clueless. AQ writes:

I think your views on marriage and women are perhaps the worst things I have ever heard. Please return those ideas to the 50's where they belong and leave this generation out of it.

The amusing thing is that she probably thinks she's well-educated. And while she does manage to avoid drooling on herself - as far as I can tell - it will be interesting to see what she makes of the ideologies of which she has never heard that are vying to supplant the Western cultural tradition once the Equalitarian Society runs its inevitable course.

One thing about which Europeans are completely correct is that most Americans, left and right, are shockingly parochial. (The fact that I happen to be a tri-lingual, soccer-playing Europhile elitist doesn't make this untrue.) I mention this because few Americans are cognizant of the massive difference that a decline in the birthrate from the USA's near-replacement level 2.0 to Italy's 1.17 can make. And that, thanks primarily to the priorities of young women like M and AQ, is precisely where America is presently headed. They may not care about the demographic realities now, but they will once they realize that there is no one to pay their social security or to defend them from those who will force them to wear burkahs.

European fatalism in the face of Islamic expansion is much easier to understand once you've walked through an Algerian ghetto in Paris or a German ghost town that was once a prosperous village.

Mailvox: Actually, it is pretty simple

DE tells a tale of one woman's woe:

Your views are simplistic. I am a 55 year old woman. When I was 20, I married an articulate, intelligent medical student with a good background and a promising future. Twelve years later, he was a drug addict, had literally shot me in the back, abandoned me with two children, and eventually went to prison. I had delayed my own career. I married again: this time a college-educated oil and cattle baron. 21 years later, he turned out to have a preference for little boys and embezzlement, injured me to the point of hospitalization, and fled the country to avoid a financial obligation of the divorce settlement. I am now permanently disabled and cannot "return to an education or career". While I love my son, I would trade it all for a chance to make another choice: a career, dignity, and financial independence.

Until society provides dignity to motherhood, more women will choose to be barren. The arabs and others, who have enslaved women and turned them into baby machines, will win the war by outproducing us in their beds.

My views may be simplistic. Of course, demographics and mathematics are equally so.And while it may be equally simplistic to point this out, the evidence would appear to suggest that DE is an impressively bad judge of character. Clearly she has never worked in an office, or she would not think there is any dignity to be found there. Still, unlike many women who have had careers, she has contributed materially to the continued existence of the human race even if she now regrets doing so.

Nevertheless, DE manages to pinpoint the fundamental flaw with the Equalitarian Society. If too many women choose to be barren, eventually the choice will be taken away from them.

TW's experience, on the other hand, is rather enlightening:

I’m 29 and just had my second child. Your article hit a nerve that’s been vibrating since I conceived #2.

As an engineer, I found it amazing that my male coworkers were in general supportive when I had my daughter 3 years ago. My female coworkers, however, tended to say I was too young; shouldn’t I get more established in my career first? I retorted that they were 5-15 years older and didn’t have children. I would be working for another 50 years given our Social Security mess. I wanted children. I had 1-2 decades for childbearing and 5-6 decades left for career goals.

When I switched to a technical documentation position while pregnant with my second child, the “gender divergence” became even more pronounced. Men understood taking a less demanding position while expecting (no more calls on weekends when the production line had problems) and were typically accepting of the pregnancy. When I said it was my second child, they thought, “It’s nice that someone is giving their child a sibling.”

Women asked if this was my first child. When I said it was my second, they asked if it was planned or an accident. Or they asked how I could afford it. When I admitted that we hadn’t planned on number two quite so soon, more than one woman actually said, “You know, you can get that fixed.” Given that attitude, it is no wonder they drove away both potential spouses and the opportunity to have children away.

The only comfort is that those with such attitudes are not the ones who are breeding.

JW hopes others can learn from her example:

You are so right in this article. I keep trying to say this to younger women who think that they have all the time in the world. I'm 50 and never married--and it is doubtful that I ever will be because I squandered my chances thinking I had time. I also had this stupid idea that, before I could become interested, the guy had to be like Mel Gibson or John Wayne. You'll notice that neither of those guys was ever interested in a female lawyer.

You should also add to your list that they not become obsessed with acitivities that don't advance their plans to become wives and mothers. I became obsessed with law, soccer and sailboat racing--all of which, at the time, seemed more fun than dating and looking for Mr. Right.

Trust and verify

From NRO's Corner

IT'S GETTING WORSE [John Podhoretz]
The White House needs to know this. Really. It's getting worse. Trust me.

But why trust Mr. Podhoretz, when you can verify?

Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 4 questions about the Harriet Miers nomination....

Here are the questions the bloggers were asked and their responses. The percentage & number of bloggers that chose each option follow the question.

1) Do you think George Bush made:

A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)

2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:

A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)

On a personal note, I will be a little disappointed if these right-wing bloggers get their wish and Miss Miers fails to be confirmed. I was looking forward to being able to work in that Creepy McCrypto reference for the next fifteen years.

The Last Boy Scout may be fitting for the new Chief Justice, but it just isn't quite as fun.

Mailvox: implacable reality

DA shares her experience:

Despite your young age, what great advice advice is in your column today on relationships with men and not postponing marriage and children! I can vouch for the truth of each one of your points through my own experience.

The column took me back to the 70's, when I was in my twenties; I remember the times: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", etc. I always wanted to get married but it's hard for one individual to buck an entire popular culture and that's almost what it was back then, especially if you were living in California. That aside, however, your column stresses common sense actions to take and that's important. That can make the difference in the course of someone's life, regardless of the nonsense preached in the media.

I finally did marry a great guy at 38; but for the family part of things, well, it was too late.

I hope your column reaches at least one young lady and instills some good sense.

Unfortunately, it's seldom too late for regret.

Mailvox: the DNA stops here!

VC wishes her kids would listen:

No one could write a better column on the subject of women and their desire to have a home and family. No one. Dr. Laura, advice columnists, PHD's in psychiatry, no one. I'm speaking from the perspective of a 55 year old woman with grown children and with a thriving business. My 26 year old daughter is grad school, had an abortion at 17 and is determined that she will not have any children. My son is married to a very nurturing woman and he is "afraid" to bring children into the world. I've told them both that when I die I will be most proud of and only thinking of my family, not my business, not my accomplishments. Your statement of at 40 and at 60 a job is all they will have was so very true.

Thank you for an instant classic. Just wish it had been on another website besides WND. My son won't read anything from that "wild-eyed" website.

VC's sad situation is why I am so cruel when shredding the purported "achievements" of women - and to a lesser extent, men - who believe that they are contributing anything to society by obtaining a masters degree or shuffling papers in an office. Regardless of whether one views them from a religious or a Darwinist perspective, the activities of 90 percent of the people in America are completely and utterly useless EXCEPT for those directed towards having, raising and providing for the next generation.

No one is going to improve the world, much less save it, by means of a Powerpoint presentation or a doctoral thesis on lesbian themes in Indian film.

VC, my recommendation is to tell your son to stop being a pussy and an evolutionary dead-end. And buy your daughter a cat, she might as well start her collection now.

Bombs and the little blue-skinned slut

This is hilarious:

UNICEF's first adult-only episode of "The Smurfs," in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes, has terrified young children....

It opens with the Smurfs dancing, hand in hand, around a campfire and singing the Smurf song. Bluebirds flutter past and rabbits gambol around their familiar village of mushroom-shaped houses until, without warning, bombs begin to rain from the sky. The Smurfs scatter and run in vain from the whistling bombs, before being felled by blast waves and fiery explosions. The final scene shows a scorched and tattered Baby Smurf sobbing inconsolably, surrounded by prone Smurfs.

Is there any chance that this isn't destined to become a cult classic, played repeatedly in nightclubs around the world? I'll bet some industrial band is using it as part of their live show within weeks. Can't you imagine Ministry cranking out "New World Order" with dying Smurfs filling the giant screens in the background?

At least someone in the UN has a sense of humor. This makes me optimistic that they will soon be able to convince the Peyo family that a short film showing Smurfette snorting coke and taking on all of Smurfsville in a massive gangbang is the best way to warn humanity about the dangers of drugs and sexual promiscuity.

Let's face it, weren't you just a little suspicious about Smurfette's moral character, or the lack of it, being that she was the only game in town?

A Pan-Galactic nightmare

From NRO:

I've seen the future of hockey, and it is soccer. At least that thought flickered through my mind last night, attending my first MLS game, in which the NY-NJ Metrostars sadly defeated the DC United at RFK Stadium, 2-1. The attendance was 18,751. The night before, at the Washington Capitals' second hockey game of the season, a measly 13,021 spectators paid for admission.

The MLS is, admittedly, a minor league on the world stage. Even their all-star team wouldn't stand a chance against juggernauts like Milan, Juve or Chelsea. Nor is the sport anywhere nearly as interesting on television as the NFL - despite the commentators being much, much better - but it is deservedly becoming more popular.

I wouldn't be surprised if the USA repeated its strong run in the next World Cup, as what the American team gives up in pure technical ability it makes up in tactical superiority and sheer athleticism. Traditional powerhouses such as Italy, France and the Netherlands have looked atrocious in qualifying and there's a reasonable shot that the USA could make it through to the semifinals if they can avoid injuries and play to their potential.

Continued success on the world stage may or may not boost soccer's popularity in the USA, but regardless, the sport will continue to be a much more interesting spectator sport than hockey, baseball or basketball.

Discuss amongst yourselves

NFL Week 5

Last Week: 9-5. Season: 36-24, .600. Fantasy: 3-1.

W-Indianapolis Colts over San Francisco 49ers
L-Tampa Bay Buccaneers over New York Jets
W-Denver Broncos over Washington Redskins
L-St. Louis Rams over Seattle Seahawks
W-Carolina Panthers over Arizona Cardinals
L-Houston Texans over Tennessee Titans
W-Cleveland Browns over Chicago Bears
San Diego Chargers over Pittsburgh Steelers
W-Detroit Lions over Baltimore Ravens
L-Miami Dolphins over Buffalo Bills
W-Green Bay Packers over New Orleans Saints
W-Jacksonville Jaguars over Cincinnati Bengals
L-Atlanta Falcons over New England Patriots
W-Dallas Cowboys over Philadelphia Eagles