Popular Culture

Wolverines In Glendale?

OK, UCLA has done their part (thanks, Jane!). Now, I’m watching to see if Arkansas can beat Florida, which will make any debate moot. If Florida wins, look for another debate over how screwed up the BCS is (which every year is a given…).

[Update at end of Florida-Arkansas game]

Florida won by ten points. Now the emotional debate (that will shed much more heat than light) over who is number two will begin…

[Update at quarter till five PM]

OK, it looks like Florida has been named number two. I have to think that’s because of the strong desire of many to avoid a rematch, rather than an honest assessment of who’s number two.

I’ll be quite amused if Ohio State blows out Florida, and Michigan trounces USC. We know from an existence proof that Michigan and Ohio State are well matched (or at least as well matched as anyone’s been against Ohio State), and provide an exciting game. If we have two blowouts in the Rose and Championship games, the country will know that they chose the wrong number two, and wondering if the real national championship game didn’t occur on November 18th.

[Update]

One more thought. I think that dual blowouts are in fact quite likely. I don’t think that Florida will be able to handle Ohio State, and does anyone think that UCLA’s defense is better, or even as good as Michigan’s? USC has been a pretender all season.

[Update]

Pete Fiutak says that the humans have taken control away from the machines:

The voters have spoken, delivering the message that they didn’t want a rematch by keeping Michigan out of the national title game and putting in a good, but underwhelming, Florida team to face Ohio State in the first stand-alone BCS Championship. While many outside the Detroit and Ann Arbor metropolitan areas may be pleased about this, there’s still something a bit hanging-chad slimy about the process.

I understand the arguments against a rematch, but I think that they should have lived with the rules they set up at the beginning of the season. I also think that Wisconsin was robbed by the two-team-per-conference rule.

Science And Society

Who Is Bisexual?

I made the mistake of wading into one of the typical sexuality threads over at Free Republic, in which I made my usual claim about the (obvious, to me) fact that sexual orientation is inborn (either genetic or in utero, or both). Someone asked me to cite a poll to that effect.

I wouldn’t have much confidence in the results of such a poll, though I’m sure that it would reveal some number of people who claim to be purely homosexual. But I suspect that many who are bisexual wouldn’t admit it. That’s why I prefer to estimate peoples’ sexual orientation by their behavior, rather than by polls. And the insight I got from this is that condemnation of gays on the basis that they have a choice and are making a bad one is a bisexual behavior.

Think about it. If someone claims that homosexuals have a choice (that is, it really is a “preference”), then how can they know that? The most reasonable supposition is that they themselves have a choice, and assume that everyone is like them. I know that I don’t, and didn’t have a choice in my sexual orientation (strongly het), and I imagine that homosexuals are just the same way, except they’re homo, rather than heterosexual. People who do have a choice are properly classified as bi, to one degree or another. Therefore (unless they’re being completely illogical–not outside the realm of possibility) people who believe that others have a choice must do so on the basis that they do themselves, and thus such a belief is a bisexual behavior (and ergo, bisexuality is a fairly broad characteristic among the population). I think it possible, perhaps even likely, that there are more bisexuals than heterosexuals. But most of them engage in heterosexual activity, because they can, and it’s more socially acceptable.

Further support for my theory is the behavior of many (but by no means all) men in the absence of women (e.g., prisons), in which they are willing to engage temporarily in homosexual behavior, though I never would. It also explains why there could be whole societies (such as Sparta) that encouraged homoeroticism. I’d have been out of luck there, but at least heterosexuality must have been allowed, or they’d have gone the way of the Shakers.

Discuss…

War Commentary

The Non-Flying Imams

What were they up to? Richard Miniter seems to have the most comprehensive story so far. It looks to me like they were either attempting a hijack, testing security, or attempting to weaken it by intimidating the airline. I can’t imagine an innocent explanation for their behavior.

And not that they should have any credibility at this point, but if CAIR wants to be taken seriously, they need to renounce all their previous denunciations of US Air. But I’m sure they’ll continue to whine about discrimination. And of course, the media will continue to treat them as though they’re worthy of respect, and not on the other side.

Satire

A Modest Proposal

Frank J. says that the military needs to get back to basics:

I, for one, know the military – and especially my brother – would like this policy a lot better. Actually, if the people shouting “Chickenhawk!” all the time got their way and only people in the military made decisions on wars, that’s exactly what would happen. My brother, like many Marines, joined the military to kill evil foreigners, not to build schools. Do you have any idea how few casualties we’d take if our sole goal was to go into a country, kill all the readily available targets, and leave? Do you also know how much cheaper that would be? Plus, if we actually just left Iraq right after we had that infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner, the whole Middle East would be talking about that huge Iraq military win because we totally kicked the crap out of Iraq. The only reason the conflict doesn’t look like a clear-cut victory is because we stayed after the crap-kicking to try and make friends.

America is big; we don

Popular Culture

Paris, Not In The Springtime

I know it’s not an edifying subject, but Kay Hymowitz entertainingly dissects the cultural phenomenon that is Paris Hilton:

Now despite her fame and good fortune, for most sentient adults Hilton personifies the decadence of our cultural moment. With her nightclub brawls, her endless sexcapades, her vapid interviews, her rodentlike dog and her lack of ostensible talent, she reeks of every vice ever ascribed to our poor country. She has become a synonym for American materialism, bad manners, greed, “like” and “whatever” Valley Girl inarticulateness, parochialism, arrogance, promiscuity, antifeminism, exposed roots and navels, entitlement, cell-phone addiction, anorexia and bulimia, predilection for gas-guzzling private transportation, pornified womanhood, exhibitionism, narcissism — you name it.

The “rodentlike dog” in particular tickled my funny bone. But as Kay points out, it’s not about worship of her, but hatred. Deserved or not, she’s our Marie Antoinette.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!