Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000794.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000794.php on line 91
August 18, 2003
Blogging Around

Joe Conason gets it right, via Body and Soul who offers a significant excerpt.

The LATimes (registration), via CalPundit, carries the story about the USofA giving up on trying to control Iraq's oil production.

The move could disappoint those who viewed the ouster of Saddam Hussein as an opportunity to set Iraqi oil policy on a pro-American course, open the nation's oil sector to Western companies and reduce the influence of OPEC on world oil production and prices.

And maybe this proves it wasn't All About The Oil?

The decision was prompted in part by the reluctance of foreign oil company experts and prominent Iraqi expatriates to join the board, officials said. The expatriates expressed concern they would be perceived by Iraqis as agents of a U.S.-orchestrated takeover of the Iraqi industry. Some oil companies reportedly were reluctant to assign key personnel to the effort, fearing that their participation might sour future business deals in Iraq.

Very sensible of them.

Chris Nelson has been watching that new reality television show about life behind the scenes at a restaurant. It seems he's having flashbacks. Also he seems to have some Unresolved Issues with restaurant owners.

Avedon Carol became Fair and Balanced, and then, poof! disappeared. In contrast to my earlier rant, it looks this time as though a Demon did, in fact, do it.

I think Jeff Cooper should win an award for the most bizarre blog-comments experience. (I have never understood the desperation of companies to "drive traffic" to their websites, regardless of whether or not said traffic would ever, under any circumstances, spend a penny of their products or services.)

This is one of the more entertaining entries I've read from Hesiod. (Okay, you'd probably read Counterspin without a link from me, but still.)

Via Eric Alterman, read Israel's role in bringing the butcher Idi Amin to power.

For the ultimate in narcissism, let me link to this entry where John links to me. Isn't he amazingly intelligent and interesting? Heh.

Over at off_topic, another short but telling comparison of the east coast's temporary power problem and Iraq's on-going crisis.

It's a chain reaction! Via Digby, who got to it via TBogg. Brace yourself. Here's a mind-boggling, gag-inducing analysis, by six "spunky" women, of what makes a "real man.

I continue to wonder if the Right thinks that this kind of propagandizing is actually going to convince anyone that Clinton was a testosterone-deficient wimp?

Is this likely to convince a woman in search of "manliness" in a leader (I know of no one who thinks of the issues in such a simplistic fashion, but maybe I don't know enough "spunky" Conservatives?) would prefer Bush's inarticulate aggression to Clinton's persuasive intelligence?

Is this article likely to convince anyone with a brain that this retro view of masculinity, the "hit first, ask questions later" type, has merit when it comes to the man with his finger on the nu-cu-lar button?

Maybe I'm just not "spunky" enough to get it?

Kate's perception of "modern manhood" (which has not changed, fundamentally, in recorded history) is " Generally positive—as it always has been, despite the efforts of the elites." I have no idea what "elites" she's referring to.

She goes on to add, " And September 11 made it more difficult for liberals to criticize traditional male characteristics and virtues." And that's true, because the two dozen women who perpetrated this act of rage and blind carnage sure made the men around them look good, didn't they? Nothing "traditional" or "male" in mass slaughter of innocent civilians, no.

Jessica is, " distressed by the degree to which feminism still carries political weight. Even under the current administration there is a continuing belief that groups like the National Organization for Women speak for women. And men are discriminated against in public policy, as in federal legislation like Title IX, the program to bolster female athletics in college."

She's right. That one dollar out of every ten or twenty that's spent on women's sports is just destroying the manhood of Our Boys, isn't it?

And, yeah, everyone knows that NOW has always fought for equality for iguanas and has nothing to do with women's issues. Those of you who might be thinking that it's directly due to NOW's past efforts that an organization like AEI thought it was necessary today to actually ask women what they think about things are just delusional.

Mona says, "Women used to rely on gentlemen to protect them from louts and predators." Louts? What century is this woman from? And, short of hiring a guy to walk around behind me 24/7, I don't see how I can be protected from "predators" if I don't learn to protect myself to some extent, okay?

In fact, I'd prefer to live in a society that protected me from "predators" rather than relying on the efforts of some coincidentally male passerby.

Louts are something I could probably handle on my own, should I happen to meet any.

Mona points out, "I was in college when feminism was reaching its apex." Cognitive dissonance ensues, especially when I read Mona's later remark that we didn't need feminism since the spread of education [for women] would have "taken care of" most of the inequalities in our society. I offer a silent plea for forgiveness to the feminists who spent their lives fighting for a woman's right to an education.

There will be a brief pause while I fly over to Iraq and explain to the rape victims there that men's "traditional" role is to "protect" women and that it's the fault of sensitive, intelligent men that "modern manhood" is having to assert itself in such an unpleasant fashion on their unprotected bodies.

I will be spending the rest of the day throwing up and I will not be reading the rest of this article which, when the pain in my head finally made me give up on it, was bordering on the libelous in reference to every Conservative's favorite target, Bill Clinton. I find that I am, indeed, insufficiently "spunky" to swallow this bilge.

The rest of my blogroll, everything after "O," will have to wait until my stomach settles.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:25 PM


Whoa! That was a well deserved rant. <heh> It's only going to get better, too. My former business partner had a saying "Swimming a lap in a pool of vomit". I think we're in for a marathon session.

Posted by: John at August 18, 2003 05:51 PM

From one of the linked articles:

"If I were on the front line, or a helicopter pilot, I would still expect the same politeness I would anywhere. But that’s why women shouldn’t be there: If a woman and a man are in combat together, the man, if he’s been brought up right, will sacrifice his life for the woman. And that’s the way it should be—which is why we have to define roles and keep women out of certain ones."


Do these women really fail to understand that the reason men were once expected to sacrifice their lives for women is because women's reproductive power outstrips that of men? One man can sire many children among a group of women; one woman in a group of men can only have one child at a time.

However, now that propagation of the species is not longer of paramount concern, that rule no longer applies in a meaningful way-- why should it be used to justify keeping women from fulfilling roles in which they'd be valuable?


Posted by: C at August 19, 2003 01:42 PM

Got to remember: They don't "believe" in Evolution, so your arguments are meaningless to them. They fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: John at August 19, 2003 02:27 PM