SMEARWEEK

Let me say first that I do not agree with everything Rep. Michele Bachmann does or says. I disagreed, por ejemplo, with her renegade response to President Obama's State of the Union address.

But I've never heard her "rage." So I see Newsweek's latest cover with Bachmann, replete with the title "The Queen of Rage," as one more example of the magazine's ceding credibility in order to carry the far left's dihydrogen monoxide.

The picture's not great, but it's the headline that's intentionally outrageous.

BeneGram's 2011 Final Forecasts

Is it March already? Guess it is. Remember: I had all four teams right on my women's bracket in 2005 and in 2009, and three of four teams right on my 2003 men's bracket. Last year, I had two teams right in the men's bracket, but West Virginia couldn't quite finish.

Women: Connecticut, Stanford, Notre Dame, Baylor. Connecticut over Baylor in the final. (3-for-4. Pretty good, but the women's tournament is mostly chalk.)

Men: Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, San Diego State. Ohio State over Pittsburgh in the final. (Another zeeero-for-four in the men's.)

From 2008: "How to Take the Buss"

In 2008, around this time, the Washington Post ran a story in tune with Valentine's Day, and I thought another view ought to be represented. The following letter of mine was published three years ago today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503206.html

How to Take the Buss

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Having read "The Differences in Gender -- Sealed With a Kiss" [Science, Feb. 11] I'd caution against anyone making any sort of judgments about a love interest based solely on if and how the person kisses.

Many people are more reserved and prefer to hold hands and kiss on the cheek rather than get all hot and heavy, even -- yes -- in 2008. But if their partners have been conned into believing that these more modest gestures are signs that they are uninterested, then they may miss out on something special.

Meanwhile, others engage in "soul-kissing," even with people they have no romantic interest in. So sexual attention, or lack thereof, is not a reliable barometer for love.

A Horrific Tragedy, a Shameful Response

I had a letter published in the Jan. 11 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, though it was shortened significantly. Below the link is my letter in full.

http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-11/news/27021841_1_mental-illness-issue-of-gun-control-semiautomatic-weapons/3

"Like most, I was appalled by the horrific incident in Tucson, in which six innocent people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded, including Rep. Giffords. Then I was disgusted with the eagerness of so many to politicize the tragedy.

Yes, the decision by the operators of Sarah Palin's website to 'target' political opponents was in bad taste and uncalled for -- as was the less-scrutinized ad* in which the campaign of Democrat Harry Mitchell did the same to Republican opponent J.D. Hayworth. But it's still just a clumsily constructed metaphor. Neither Palin nor Mitchell was advocating violence toward another human being.

The more we learn about the young man who shot twenty people on Saturday, the more we find an incoherent mess not resembling any pundit or politician -- of any political stripe. So let's absorb this sad day without pointing fingers at illegal aliens, the Tea Party, environmentalists, Glenn Beck, Richard Jewell, or heavy-metal music. The person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger, and we dishonor the victims when we opportunistically use their murder as an weapon for bludgeoning our political opponents."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA&feature=youtu.be

On Christmas, a Choice

I really hate to write this actually on the holiday, but I can't take the "have it both ways" attitude any longer.

If you celebrate Christmas, I hope you have a wonderful one. But please pick one of the following philosophies. Choose carefully!

a.) There is nothing wrong with having Christmas displays in the town square, in front of City Hall, or in public schools. Furthermore, we should all say "Merry Christmas!" and not this watered down "Happy Holidays" stuff -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging that Christmas is a completely secular holiday with no religious meaning whatsoever, and that it's about Santa Claus and drinking cider and not remembering Bethlehem at all.

b.) Christmas has become way too secular, and we've forgotten its religious roots. We need to remember that the birth of Christ is the reason for the season -- but, recognizing that, we are acknowledging why it's inappropriate for public tax dollars to be used towards a public display honoring Christmas, and that it's perfectly fine for stores and shopping centers to say something more inclusive than the belief-system-specific "Merry Christmas."

I'm closer to (b.). How about you? No hybrid choices, though. Pick one.

Oh, and Happy Holidays!

Two Letters

The following appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News on November 8 (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20101108_Letters__Assessing_the_state_of_the_Obama_presidency.html) No, mine has nothing to do with the Obama presidency:

"I'm in favor of gays and lesbians having the right to marry and adopt children, but Michael McGonigle (letters, Nov. 4) can't be taken seriously if he's comparing those who think differently to violent extremists who stone to death people who disagree with them (including gays and lesbians)."

-- and this appeared in the Delaware County Daily Times on November 27 (http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/27/opinion/doc4cf088bd81ed9269203692.txt):

"I distribute literature for two nationwide organizations that assist victims of domestic violence, and I am frustrated that people such as Nan E. Fagan (letters, Nov. 14) are still operating under the delusion that violence is a strictly male-on-female phenomenon.More than 250 studies, reviews and analyses demonstrate that women initiate domestic abuse against their male partners approximately as often as the reverse occurs. A recent study by the American Psychiatric Association indicates that, when only one partner in a heterosexual relationship is violent to the other, it is the woman almost 71 percent of the time.There is also a startlingly high amount of domestic violence within the gay and lesbian community. Like straight men, these victims are ignored when people like Fagan pretend violence is only defined as 'when a man hurts a woman.'”

No Need for Candidates to Use Misandrist Insults

I'm not entirely familiar with Ruth Marcus's work, but I agree with her this week:

Click here: Ruth Marcus - 'Manning up' isn't the problem this election

Excerpt: "'Man up' as in 'man up, Harry Reid,' from Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle on Reid's playing down of Social Security's financial woes. And, though it got less attention, from Missouri Democrat Robin Carnahan to Republican Roy Blunt at a Senate debate the very same night, on health care: If Blunt wants to do away with health care for others, Carnahan told him, 'then you ought to repeal your own first. And man up.'

Ladies! If we're so tough, so confident in our toughness and so comfortable with it, what do testicles have to do with it?...Don't -- even, or maybe especially, if you're a woman -- equate toughness with manliness. At least not unless you think it's acceptable for your opponent to tell you to behave like a lady."

I'm pulling for almost every Republican candidate next month, but I still agree with Ruth Marcus's every word here. I'm tired of women -- politicians or otherwise -- who believe that they themselves are not to be attacked for their gender but that they have every right to ridicule men for theirs.

If Harry Reid -- and, again, I am NOT a fan -- had told Angle to "man up" or "woman up," there'd be a tidal wave of anger against him.

You're better than this behavior, Sharron.

Helping Boys to Like Reading Without Scatology

I liked this a lot:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704271804575405511702112290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTThirdBucket#articleTabs%3Darticle

"When I was a young boy, America's elite schools and universities were almost entirely reserved for males," writes Thomas Spence. "That seems incredible now, in an era when headlines suggest that boys are largely unfit for the classroom. In particular, they can't read."

Spence is not the first to observe this. He disagrees, however, on one of the proposed "remedies."

"According to a revealing Associated Press story in July these experts insist that we must 'meet them where they are'—that is, pander to boys' untutored tastes.
For elementary- and middle-school boys, that means 'books that exploit [their] love of bodily functions and gross-out humor.' AP reported that one school librarian treats her pupils to 'grossology' parties."

His alternative theory?

"The appearance of the boy-girl literacy gap happens to coincide with the proliferation of video games and other electronic forms of entertainment over the last decade or two. Boys spend far more time 'plugged in' than girls do. Could the reading gap have more to do with competition for boys' attention than with their supposed inability to focus on anything other than outhouse humor?"

I'm with Spence. Both boys and girls (and adults) would make room for reading if they weren't constantly plugged in to MP3s, cellphones, Twitter, and Facebook. Making books more available and removing (at least for a little while) devices that feed the picture into young minds, rather than allowing imaginations to do some of the work, is what will help more young people read. I know I'd hate going to a "grossology" party, with everyone talking about poo or their farts or puke. I read a good amount of sports fiction and Encyclopedia Brown mysteries at that age.

Another "solution" I have a problem with centers upon gender stereotypes, as people argue that boys will all love reading adventure and sci-fi stories, while girls read about being saved by a white knight. Have boys and girls alike read Treasure Island, and then have them all read Jane Eyre. Maybe you'll find more boys like the first book and more girls like the second. Maybe you won't. But exposing minds to many types of literature and helping them figure out what they like and don't like seems like the best bet. After all, even though I'm not a patron myself, don't both genders adore the Harry Potter series?

Forget Alpha and Beta and Just Be Yourself

Boy, oh, boy, (and girl, oh, girl,) am I tired of seeing stories like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7918699/Women-view-modesty-as-sign-of-weakness.html#dsq-content

From the brief article:

"Research suggested that females have found the rise of the 'more feminine man', or 'metrosexual', a big turn-off.
Women see modesty amonsgt men as a poor character trait that could adversely affect their employability or earnings potential...
The study of 132 female and 100 male student volunteers found, however, that men did not view female modesty negatively.
The participants viewed footage of 15-minute job interviews of males and female actors delivering similar responses to questions for the position that required social skills.
The applicants were judged to be equally competent for the role but the 'modest' males were less liked, results published in the journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity showed."

First off, could we please desist with the idea that one can speak for all women or all men or all anything else? Women are not a monolith, and neither are men. I'm certain some women would love to marry James Bond or Cary Grant, and many others want the quiet bookworm who talks about his feelings a lot. (I won't get into right now which category I'm more likely to fall under.)

Secondly, we don't need any more damn labels to stick onto people. (I agreed when Michael Stipe said that he thinks "labels are for canned food.") There's a stereotype about men and boys that they're generally slobs or barbarians who like to hit each other with sticks while rolling around in the mud in their underwear. Then, when it's time to go out to dinner, they wet their hands and run their fingers through their hair to comb it. If you do anything beyond that, the stereotypers first assume you're gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course), and if they find out you're not they'll give you the new label of "metrosexual." If you fail to live up to one stereotype, they'll hit you with another one, rather than reconsider whether they should be pigeonholing people. I was never a fan of John Edwards politically, but I didn't give him any crap over his $400 haircuts while he was running for the presidency. If women can throw down four Bennies at the salon -- then go for it, man. And I spend $18 at The Hair Cuttery, so I'm not speaking from experience here.

Next, and this will come as a surpirse to many women: men don't merely say they have emotions because they think it will impress you or turn you on. Men have emotions because they're human beings. I'm always disturbed when I find a woman who talks about her feelings or cries or needs a shoulder to lean on (about every day) suddenly turns around and ridicules a man whom she sees doing these things even once.

When people first began to move away from these stereotypes years ago (prompting the sort of backlash we now find in the Telegraph piece), it wasn't merely because the stereotypes were unfair (which they are, to both sexes), but also because they're simply not true. Society must stop telling men that they're not to have emotions or to admit that they have them. Maybe men's average life expectancy will start to rise if they don't insist on internalizing everything.

My Declaration (for the) Independence

How cool is it that my letter about the Philadelphia Independence was published on July 4?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/97751314.html?viewAll=y

"I was pleased to see the Philadelphia Union draw such a large crowd to the first game in its new home, PPL Park in Chester. But too little attention has been paid to Philadelphia's other expansion soccer team: the Philadelphia Independence, of Women's Professional Soccer.

It was good that The Inquirer had a sizable article about a recent Independence win, but too many news outlets seem to be ignoring the team, despite the fact that it's in second place in the WPS at the All-Star Break."

Laugh Away -- Just Not When Someone Gets Hurt

I thank Dr. Helen Smith for again sticking up for men and boys everywhere.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-does-society-encourage-genital-assault-against-men/2/

I have no idea why anyone would consider it funny when anyone else is hurt, and writing around (or on the ground) in pain.

A few years ago, I was in NYC with friends, and I decided to take a break from the bar scene to grab some bottled water at a nearby all-night-deli. I excused myself and walked about half a block west. In the time I was in the store, getting my liter of water (probably for about $6.49), it began to rain. POUR. I said, "Oh, jeez," and then ran as quickly as I could back to the bar. It didn't help. Upon my re-entrance, tugged at my drenched shirt and made some comment to the effect of, "Well, I wanted water, and I got it!" and one of my friends laughed. He apologized immediately for laughing, but I said, "It's okay! You can laugh; it was funny." On the other hand, had I been HURT instead of wet, and people had laughed, I would have been very upset.

On Sesame Street many years ago, there was an episode on which one of the adult characters hurts his thumb while using a hammer. Oscar the Grouch appears and asks what the commotion is, and the man explains what happens, adding, "You probably think this is funny." But, in one of the great moments of the show's history, Oscar says, "No! I laugh at people sometimes, but I don't laugh when someone is in pain. Pain HURTS!"

If only television writers, screenwriters, and Madison Avenue writers would watch more Sesame Street.