Doing their best to propagate the loutish Bela Karolyi’s rants about the age of female Chinese gymnasts, the NYT throws out this excellent bit of analysis:

Chinese Grab Gold in Gymnastics; U.S. Is Second – NYT

The Chinese gymnasts lack curves, have an average height of 4 feet 9 inches and weigh an average of 77 pounds. [...] The women on the United States team, generally more muscular and shapely than the Chinese, are an average of 3 ½ inches taller and 30 pounds heavier.

I am guessing it is something as benign as misplaced nationalism that prompts the perverts at the NYT to wonder about the curves and shapeliness of young teenage girls. Fortunately, the lack of curves or shapeliness on the part of US, Chinese or other young female athletes will fail to make an impact on other sports fans … I hope!

Fortunately, the NYT redeems itself with this Op-Ed:

The Throwback – Creep Show – NYT

But most of all I will watch the enormously popular women’s gymnastics competition. The performances are incredible and fearless, but it isn’t the athleticism that draws me in. In fact I can’t think of any competition in the Olympics, or all of SportsWorld, more creepy and disturbing: these largely shapeless girls in their leotards and flaxen-waxen hair and bouncy-wouncy ponytails. “They look like girls from the neck up,” I was told by Joan Ryan, whose 1995 book, “Little Girls in Pretty Boxes,” blew a sky-high lid off the sadomasochistic training regimens that young female gymnasts were being subjected to. She continued: “From the neck down they look like prepubescent boys.”

During the Olympics, when a female gymnast finishes an event and hugs her coach, often a man three times her age, I cringe at what I believe is the unsavory stench of the sport in general — children under the wing of men who based on lengthy documentation have proven to be abusive, relentless, intolerant, humiliating and, in some instances, accused of sexual misconduct. “These girls will do anything for these guys,” Ms. Ryan told me. “They have such control over them.”

Which also reminds us that if indeed we are looking for soft-porn masquerading as a sport, there is the ever popular beach volleyball (what next, strip volleyball?):

I will watch women’s beach volleyball, not because it’s a sport, but because skimpily-clad leggy women rolling in sand does put me in a state of excitement right up there with mud wrestling (no doubt the next sanctioned Olympic sport given NBC’s need for strong television ratings and the correct calculus that soft-core porn under the guise of sport does have its benefits).

And goes on to document what this race to the extreme entails:

Former United States Olympian Dominique Moceanu, who at the age of 14 was part of the 1996 team that won the overall Olympic gold, called for the ouster of Marta Karolyi, the coordinator of the women’s Olympic team, in a recent appearance on the HBO show “Real Sports.”

Moceanu told me she feels the training methods of Marta Karyoli and her legendary husband, Bela, are obsolete, outdated and center on intimidation. As a result, injuries are often ignored; Moceanu suffered a lower-leg stress fracture right before the Olympics in 1996 and says Marta Karolyi initially scoffed even though she collapsed twice one day while trying to train. But seeing as Marta Karolyi has helped produce 13 gold medals for the United States at world championships since 2001, don’t count on any changes, in particular if the women’s team finds itself drenched in gold in Beijing.

“Why is winning the only thing that matters?” asks Sey. “There must be some national crisis of self-esteem for us to push so hard for these medals. Otherwise why would you need it?”

We are used to rot on this side of the pond, where the choice is between an outright organ of a political party or celebrity claptrap that passes for journalism. But the updated version of “on the Internet nobody knows you are a dog“, it seems, is that on a blog nobody knows you are a doggone fool. Here is some commentary on Obama’s visit to the UK from the mighty BBC’s website:

BBC NEWS | The Reporters | Justin Webb

He shook hands with the policemen outside 10 Downing Street!
This is presidential? No way Ronald Reagan would have done it. Was it a nicely Democratic touch or a nervy moment for a man so exhausted that he would have shaken hands with anyone who presented him or herself?

Marvellous! Splendid commentary!

[ Link ]

There is an interesting phenomenon to be seen these days, every time there is some controversy. It is quickly morphed into a controversy about the response to the original one! That happened with the Muhammad cartoon issue, where the publication of some silly cartoons aimed at infuriating Muslims (the same populations that are oppressed by the North in real ways) was morphed into outrage over Muslim response to it. Similarly, the clown Imus says something despicable about Rutgers University women’s basketball team members and within a day the “national conversation” is about misogyny in hip-hop and rap lyrics.

In that grand tradition comes the response from professional blowhard and occasional biologist Richard Dawkins on the James Watson controversy (Watson being the famous co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, using data stolen from a female colleague unacknowledged for her contribution, who has stuck an eighth or ninth foot in his mouth with his musings on black people and their capabilities):

Disgrace: How a giant of science was brought low | The Observer

In the end, Watson’s decided to return home, so no meetings occurred, a move that has dismayed many scientists who believed that it was vital Watson confront his critics and his public. ‘What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant “thought police”, of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation,’ said Richard Dawkins, who been due to conduct a public interview with Watson this week in Oxford.

Dawkins’s stance was supported by Blakemore. ‘Jim Watson is well known for being provocative and politically incorrect. But it would be a sad world if such a distinguished scientist was silenced because of his more unpalatable views.’

In case you are misled by the righteous indignation of Dawkins and Blakemore, Watson is not being “silenced” but ignored, and rightly so for this is what he said by way of justifying his “unpalatable view”:

people who have to deal with black employees find this not true

Even if we are to follow Dawkins’ demand that we lend an ear to a bigot, his reasoning deserves the trashbin given the unscientific nature of it.

Back in 2000, when we were still belabouring under the impression that democracy is an open sport, those of us who supported Ralph Nader were castigated for promoting a “spoiler” candidate. This artful term summarised the idea that a few deluded idealists (that would be us) were not just throwing away votes but worse helping the real opposition win. Let’s play this logic out a bit…

The “SuperDuper Tuesday” results are pouring in and one trend seems to be emerging:

Obama is winning big in the red states: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Utah (and losing in the liberal ones — New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts — not counting his home state of Illinois). With some small modifications, one can now apply the “spoiler” argument to Obama: he is drawing upon the votes of idealistic minorities (African-Americans, in this case) to establish a lead that is worthless in the real election where the votes of these groups, in those states, will be swamped by that of the white majorities who will prevail as before in installing a Republican in the White House.

Extending the logic a bit further, we can see that Hillary is a spoiler candidate too. Because she is drawing upon the votes a few idealists (women, in this case) to win primaries… etc… you get the drift!

I, of course, do not accept this strange logic, and am under no compulsion to consider any of these three a spoiler candidate.

Paul Krugman writes in his blog that even that old conservative hope that lowered taxes increase government revenues and decrease deficit is not playing out well, now that corporate profits are on the downslide. But there is hope. For one thing there is the McDonald’s Dollar Millionaire effort (perhaps they mean the Canadian Dollar, or some such reference to the fact that the USD is sinking in value?), and then there is this great deal:

The Staples “Manager’s” chair, for a mere $70 (also available in brown). Make sure you can differentiate yourself from the clerical staff with this baby!

In an earlier post I wrote:

A bunch of people in Colorado want their neighbour to take down a Christmas peace sign wreath…

Fortunately, it turns out that the “bunch” is mostly the [now ex] board members of the housing association. New York Times has more:

Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.

The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.

[...]

In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.

On Tuesday morning, 20 people marched through the center carrying peace signs and then stomped a giant peace sign in the snow perhaps 300 feet across on a soccer field, where it could be seen from about just everywhere by just about everyone.

[...]

A former president of the Loma Linda community, where Mr. Trimarco lives, said Tuesday that he had stepped in to help form an interim homeowners’ association.

The former president, Farrell C. Trask, described himself in a telephone interview as a military veteran who would fight for anyone’s right to free speech, peace symbols included.

Town Manager Mark Garcia said Pagosa Springs was building its own peace wreath, too. Mr. Garcia said it would be finished by late Tuesday and installed on a bell tower in the center of town.

Goes to show that there is more to people than the simplifications and stereotypes offered and furthered by TV talking heads.

A bunch of people in Colorado want their neighbour to take down a Christmas peace sign wreath, because — no I am not making this up — it is considered to be “divisive” i.e., it is anti-war. So, there you have it: war is what brings us together and peace is what divides us.

ABC News: Colo. Subdivision Bans Wreath Peace Sign

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

[...]

[ Link ]

In the wake of their “thumping”, GOP and conservative talking heads, apart from wringing hands and pointing fingers, have been outdoing each other on the preposterous nature of their explanations. For instance, there was Michael Savage on talk radio with the mind-numbing analysis that George Bush, the liberal, intentionally threw the GOP under the bus in 2006 (I presume by invading Iraq and botching it).

Now we have Ramesh Ponnuru (who was left spluttering on the Jon Stewart show), a later entrant to the brown-noser hall of fame (home to such luminaries as Dinesh D’Souza, Bobby Jindal), with this beauty in the New York Times:

The real message of the last few elections is that, for the most part, social issues help the Republicans and economic ones the Democrats.

To understand what Ponnuru means by economic issues (during an election cycle where the GOP, among the usual techniques of hate-mongering and so on, ran on the economy) you have to read through the dicing and slicing of 2006 election results data that he offers in the article.

A look at the issues polls, exit polls and the election results suggests the voters chose, in essence, a reality-based world, in opposition to GOP and Bush policies and activities. While the numbers (and the pronouncements by the pundits) are rosy on the economy, the public voted (mostly) for reality on minimum wage (and a Nov 9 Newsweek poll finds increasing minimum wage a top priority for 68% of the population — more on the findings of this poll in a separate post) and health care. Abortion and stem cell? Only about 5% and 3% respectively considered this the most important issue that contributed to their choice. This despite polls (Time, Nov 1) showing that voters favour Republicans on “moral values”.

Distracting and rallying the public using fear and social issues as tactics help the Republicans and a return to reality helps the Democrats.

(Which is not to say that the Democrats are a great hope for mankind!)

If you have been beset by deep philosophical misgivings on the meaning of the abstract concept that we label ‘freedom’, a piece of good news for you. A definition has been found! Here is Andrew Sullivan on PBS’ NOW:

I believe in a free country people can spend money as they want on advancing their own point of view. That’s what freedom means.

Freedom is the ability to advance your point of view by spending your money. But I bet you already knew the converse of that!

You cannot make this shit up:

BBC | China’s full-time computer gamers

China is exploiting a new industry – and it exists in the shadowy world of fantasy monsters and virtual treasure.

This is the online computer game economy where people assume characters and play to win virtual ‘gold’ which they can then spend in their game.

But to build up this credit can take hours, or even days – so around the world, some gamers are paying others to do the hard work for them.

[ Link ]