A great time . . .

Check out their ghost dinners . . . next ones: July 15 and July 29 -- Gypsy in the Southside: http://www.hauntedpittsburghtours.com/

Bashing Me For Liking The Buccos

The last couple times I've posted about my rabid appreciation for Baseball, and our Pittsburgh Pirates I've been mocked by Gunn and others. Well today, I'm doing it anyway. In the city of champions, we need but one more trophy and we're on that path.

Not only are the Pirates of today only 4 games under .500 without arguably their best player (Ryan Doumit, injured for the last couple months). They're not missing Nate McLouth at all, courtesy of the most promising Pirates rookie since a kid named Bonds. Their defense is superb, their pitching above average. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our first mediocre Pirates team since 1997.

The best news for the future of the Pirates though, came with the trading of Nate McLouth. Yes it stung, I even posted how painful it was on my blog. After reflection though, I have realized that it was a good sign for the future of the Pirates. The reason why, goes back to the 1997 Pirates. In that time a foolish Cam Bonifay saw that the Pirates were almost mediocre and started adding over price free agents as if he had the core of a great ball club. He most certainly, had no such core. Neil Huntington has, accurately, realized that this is not a good enough core to build around. Nate McLouth, Jason Bay, Ryan Doumit and Paul Maholm are NOT Andy VanSlyke, Barry Bonds, Bobby Bonilla and Doug Drabek any more then Brian Giles, Jason Kendall, Aramis Ramierez and Kip Wells were. They certainly aren't Jordan Staal, Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Marc-Andre Fleury. The Pirates are doing what they must and continuing to be "sellers" while they wait for the next championship caliber core.

There is good news on that front though. This game has my heart aflutter. Arguably two of the Pirates' best prospects combined to make this a 16-5 route. Morris picking up the win and Alvarez hitting 2 homeruns (his 11th and 12th, more then any of the Pirates) and contributing 7 RBIs.

So enjoy this team that may well break .500 and know that there are better ones in the near future. Maybe 2011 will see all 3 teams win a champtionship.

Does anybody out there care about the Pirates?

Let's go to the tape

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/fralick-2-cabbie090515.mov

Ummmmm...

Look who facebook thought I might want to be friends with:


...bet they don't know I blog here.

Pittsburgh Men Fatter Than The Women

According to Pittsburgh Today:

A closer look at the data reveals that Pittsburgh men are particularly overweight. We have a lower percent of men who are in the normal BMI range, and more in the combined overweight and obese categories, than any of the other 14 regions that are part of the Pittsburgh Indicators comparison group. Pittsburgh women are near the average in the rankings for the proportion with healthy BMIs.

It's worth considering. I don't know if it feels like men are the overweight ones when I'm out on the Southside, but apparently we (the men of Pittsburgh) are over eating. What do we think is responsible for this? Ethnic food? Poor exercise weather? The new design of the trays for the hot dog guys at PNC Park?

Recycling?

I think I've heard this story before:

http://carbolicsmoke.com/2009/04/28/religious-woman-where-have-all-the-shirtless-young-men-gone/

Economic Stagnation and the Disappearance of Hats

I'd like to start out by thanking the guys for inviting me over to say a few words that don't necessarily relate to anything about anything in particular. I'd like to assure everyone that any posts here will have the same level of quality, factualness, and proofreadingitude as on my personal page, that is to say, none whatsoever.

Now, to business:

The thing that has depressed me most about the most recent economic calamity has not bee the unemployment, the new crushing debts, the failure of financial institutions, or even the closing of Circuit City. No, it was my fervent hope that somehow the worst economic conditions seen in generations would bring back the sepia toned fashion sensibilities.

I take as my paradigm John Ford's classic film The Grapes of Wrath, which chronicles the trials of the Joad family as they make their way from Oklahoma to new opportunities in California. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that the entire Joad family, including Tom Joad played by the adept Henry Fonda, maintains an aura of fashionable dignity, despite the crushing depression of their lives.

Indeed, you'll notice that even while Tom is killing a guy, he's still wearing a buttoned up shirt, suspenders, and a hat, projecting an air of cool confidence as he crushes the life force out of someone. Sure, Tom is desperate, but he looks good.

Pictures of my relatives from that era echo a similar theme: despite having to eat squirrel meat and three day old bread, they, especially the men, were well dressed with a keen fashion sense. (Notice, please, that the next big slump in the American economy occurred in the 1970s with the rise of the "leisure suit"; I do not believe this to be a coincidence.)

What troubles me most about today, is that we men have slipped away from that nearly egalitarian fashion sensibility, where from 30 yards away the guy in the suit could equally be a banker or a ditch digger. Years ago the suit used to be that great uniform of Democracy: every man wore one regardless of social class, with only small variations and embellishments around the necktie and the hat (both of which have similarly faded away).

Today, those in suits are either going to a job interview or an executive, those in ties work for either the government or monolithic old corporations, and those in hats are judges or some sort of clown. Business casual, in my opinion, has turned us into lazy slackers, pushing the boundaries of acceptability to its lowest common denominator until we all look like pricks.

This assault on traditional manly fashion virtues must not be allowed to stand, and frankly, if we ever expect to get out of this economic slump, we need to be more Pa Joad and less Pa Choad.

In case you missed our all-Pirates edition in the Trib p.m. . . .

So, this is the first thing that appeared on YouTube...

... when I searched for this song. Interesting, huh?

Men: how do we feel about this? What does this make us think about?

Pittsburgh Pirates to Don New Beaks for 2009 Season

Pirates Prospects

I know it seems like the Pirates will never win again, but they will. There is hitting talent thr whole way through the roster and it should all be in Pittsburgh by the end of 2012. The most promising prospects at each level are:

• AAA - Andrew McCutchen
• AA - Jose Tabata
• High A - Pedro Alvarez
• Low A - Sloof Lirpa

Most of the readers of this blog are aware of McCutchen, Tabata and even Alvarez (covered in this blog post). The guy you probably haven't heard of is Sloof Lirpa, but according to the Fox Sports Net the young Norwegian may be the Pirate's best prospect.

Can you identify this? Describe what we're seeing (and sorry for the poor picture quality).

Amazing

Sports is one of the few places where excellence can be seen and appreciated with the naked eye and quantified in to numbers. This is why little boys grow up wanting to be athletes, because they don't know how to quantify being good at what daddy does. They do know how to watch the TV and say "I want to win the Masters by 12 strokes like Tiger just did."

With that in mind I thought I would share the latest in a series of statistical revelations about Tiger. He won his 66th tournament today since turning pro in 1996 at the age of 21. To put that in perspective, that means that he has tied the Detroit Lions in wins since he turned pro in August of 1996. That's 13 seasons for the lions a little less then 12 (due to last year's injury and the timing) for Tiger. In case you're curious that even includes having barry sanders for a few seasons. I couldn't find reliable statistics, but I imagine they are about equal in number of competitions. The diference of course is that the Lions only have to play ONE other team and sometimes that other team is as woeful as they are. Tiger Woods has to play between 50 and 150 of the "second bests" in every tournament. Simply Remarkable.

How Far can Pedro Alvarez Hit the Ball?

Pedro Alvarez, the Pirates #1 pick in last July's draft has had an exciting spring. Reaching base in half of his appearances and clubbing three homeruns. What's really exciting is just how far he can hit the ball though, we're talking Stargel far here. Rumor has it that he hit batting practice OVER the pond outside field 1 at Pirate City. I was curious, so I grabbed a google shot of Pirate City and another one from PNC Park. I made a line that represented a homerun right down the line, over the pond. I then made a hash mark at first base (click the picture to blow it up, look close). Copied the line, pasted it on to PNC Park and resized it so the hash mark touches first base. By this (admittedly crude) estimation I have him knocking the ball not just in to the Allegheny, but in to the DEEP waters, over the kayakers for sure.

Carbolic Smoke Ball in front page PG story today

Read it here . . . and here's the Carbolic post referenced.

Won't be long now . . . for better or for worse

If the erection on your hillside figure lasts more than four hours, seek medical attention immediately

This is an actual figure carved into an English hillside dating to the 17th Century called the Cerne Abbas giant.

Guys do the darndest things . . . .

RECESSION HITS CITY STATUES, ALL GIVEN PINK SLIPS

I'll be the one that points it out...

I had no idea who Natasha Richardson was until this morning. Now that I've done some research, I still have no idea. The only movie of hers that I saw was Parent Trap and that was about 15 years ago.

I was aware of Vanessa Redgrave of course, but still, this has been front page news on CNN.com the ENTIRE day. That's the day after the day the Federal Reserve caught the financial world by suprise by buying 300M in long-term debt from the US. This is a move that hasn't even been tried since "Operation Twist" in the 1960's. Do you know what happened with Operation Twist? If you care about democracy, the market economy and the recession why don't you read about it before you check the results from Richardson's autopsy.

This was the major point, but since I was already worked up, I noticed the following other things about CNN while I was there:

1. THE PURCHASING OF LONG-TERM DEBT ISN'T EVEN ONE OF THE STORIES TO THE RIGHT OF THE LEAD STORY!!!
2. "Pope Wrong on Condoms" Really? There's a brand new issue to cover.
3. There's only one article on the recession on the right hand menu.
4. No, I do not count stories about retrieving AIG's bonuses "recession stories"

And besides, they work cheap...

"The fact is that the average woman coming out of school, if you dress her up and put makeup on, she looks like an adult. The average guy coming out of school looks like he's coming out of puberty. It's not discrimination. It's biology."

Join Carbolic Smoke Ball for the Big Roast -- March 13

Pride. Passion. Pittsburgh Pirates.

What the hell does that mean?

Whatever it means, the Bucs are sticking with it this year as the team's tagline.

Maybe it's best not to have a tagline that really describes this team.

From here:

"The Pirates will stick with the tagline they used last year -- 'Pride. Passion. Pittsburgh Pirates.' -- but Mr. DePaoli does want to make some changes in the team's merchandise assortment.

"His issue? Too many different Pirates hats with too many different logos and color assortments.

"The Red Sox and the Yankees, even Coke, have pretty much stuck with the same iconic logo for years and years. He thinks the Pirates should do that, too.

"The gold 'P' on the black background will be seen much more often as the season progresses, although some exceptions will be made for things such as pink hats for young girls."

Super Bowl video hits the stores: Cardinals pay homage to Steelers

SI Swimsuit issue loses some of its offensiveness

Oh, no! Say it ain't so: "Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue not the controversial magazine it once was." This is terrible! "Time was, the issue would spark cries about the objectification of women and how the premier sports magazine had forsaken its duty to cover sports. Subscribers even canceled, though in small numbers."

And: "Given the falling fortunes of Playboy magazine, perhaps it's inevitable that the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue would fail to make the splash it has in past years."

The omniscient mobsters of Coppola's 'Godfather': The smartest guys anywhere

It is fair to say that for more than 35 years, "The Godfather" has occupied a prominent place not just in the cinematic constellation but in our shared cultural milieu. It is perhaps the most re-watched, most quoted and most beloved film of all time. More than any American epic ever produced, it doesn't just draw the viewer in, it sucks him like a vacuum and transports him to a seemingly realistic and thorougly engrossing other-world of power and perverse glamour.

Now, to suggest that watching this epic requires massive doses of the willing suspension of disbelief might strike some as peculiar if not sacrilegious. But the fact is, a recurring phenomenon strewn throughout the film strains credulity to the point that any viewer who happens to pick up on it may thereafter have a difficult time treating the film with the solemnity that Coppola's gravely earnest direction, not to mention Nino Rota's iconic score, insist on.

The point is best explained by illustrating it. Let's start with what is arguably the pivotal scene in the film from a plot standpoint. About 35 minutes into the flick, mobster Virgil Sollozzo, "The Turk," presents Don Corleone with a business proposition in the Don's olive oil importing offices. Sollozzo, described by the Don's adopted son and consigliere Tom Hagen as "a top narcotics man," wants the Corleones to invest $1 million in cash and to provide political influence and legal protection for Sollozzo's drug trafficking business. It was 1945 and drugs were the wave of the underworld future. The Don, accompanied by sons Sonny and Fredo, Tom Hagen and mob lieutenants Clemenza and Tessio, politely declines Sollozzo's proposal because he believes his politician friends would regard drug dealing as a "dirty" business. But Sollozzo makes one more try: "If you're worried about security for your million, the Tattaglias'll guarantee it," referencing a rival crime family. Before Don Corleone can say a word, Sonny, the Don's oldest son and heir-apparent blurts out: "Are you telling me that the Tattaglias guarantee our invest--."

The next several seconds are remarkable. The camera cuts to closeups of the faces of Clemenza, Hagen and Sollozzo. Their looks unmistakeably signal a realization that Sonny has just made a tremendous, perhaps fatal, mobster faux pas. Don Corleone arguably makes matters worse by drawing attention to Sonny's error. He angrily silences his son and proceeds to tell Sollozzo that he's "spoiled" his children by allowing them to "talk when they should listen." The Don makes it clear that his "no is final," cordially wishes Sollozzo well, and shows him out. The Don holds Sonny back to reprimand him some more: "Never tell anybody outside the Family what you're thinking again."

Of course, it's too late. Sonny's faux pas sets up everything that follows, in this film and in two sequels. Sollozzo tries to kill Don Corleone because he knows that his heir is predisposed to do business with him while the Don is not. The attempt on Don Corleone's life leads to Michael killing Sollozzo, not to mention an all-out gang war that claims Sonny's life and eventually leads to the elimination of all the Corleone family rivals and betrayers in the film's celebrated blood-bath finale.

The fact that a few words off the top of Sonny's head led to all that is not the remarkable thing about the scene. The remarkable thing is that the mobsters in the room (except for Sonny) somehow -- dare I say incredibly? -- realized the import of Sonny's goof the moment it occurred. It is fair to say that most people watching don't bother to ask themselves why the mobsters should have had such omniscience, and in fact, by any reasonable measure, there's no reason that they should have. No one, after all, is that perceptive. Perhaps Coppola made the mobsters react as they did to herald the upcoming conflict for us, the audience?

Maybe. But as fans of the film should know but probably don't because Coppola has them so thoroughly diverted, these mobsters possess an almost infinite awareness about all sorts of conveniently useful information, from human nature to Almanac facts -- knowledge that extends far beyond what ordinary men of their background -- hell, far beyond what men, or women, of any background -- possess. Aside from Tom Hagen and Michael, it is difficult to imagine any of these men graduating from high school let alone attending college, yet they know everything. It is safe to say that this is the most astute, most omniscient collection of human beings ever assembled anywhere in the world.

Take another, less subtle, example. After the Don is gunned down, Sollozzo wants a one-on-one meeting with Michael to patch things up. The Corleones decide this would be the perfect occasion for Michael to kill Sollozzo, so they decide to plant a gun at the site of the meeting ahead of time. They find out the secret location for the meeting is Louis' Restaurant in the Bronx. Well, mirabile dictu, Tessio knows all about the place, down to the toilet in the restroom. No kidding. Tessio explains that it's "a small family place, good food. Everyone minds his own business. . . . they got an old-fashion toilet. You know, the box-and-the-chain thing. We might be able to tape a gun behind it." Tessio sounds less like a thug than a restaurant critic with a toilet fetish. But of course he's dead-on about the toilet -- the Corleone gang is able to plant the gun there perfectly -- and about the food, as even Sollozzo tells Michael to "try to veal. It's the best in the city."

And let's not forget the most incredible example of this omniscience in this film or, arguably, any film not directed by Cecil B. DeMille. After Don Corleone makes the peace with the heads of the Five Families, he knows that when he dies and Michael takes over the family business, the other families will try to kill Michael. He even knows how it will happen. He tells Michael: "Barzini will move against you first. He'll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you'll be assassinated."

Whoa! Which book of the Old Testament did that come from? If Nostradamus had predicted the future with such clarity and specificity, belief in his psychic abilities would not be confined to the sorts of people convinced that Lyndon Johnson was in on the Kennedy assassination. Of course, the Don's prediction turned out to be on the mark. Shortly after the Don dies, Tessio betrays Michael in precisely the manner the Don predicted. But Michael outfoxes him and Barzini and the other Corleone Family rivals because of his father's warning.

In point of fact, the film is replete with instances of this sort of omniscience. E.g., when Michael sees there is no one guarding his father at the hospital, Michael knows for a fact that "men are coming to kill" the Don. He was right, of course. Later Michael knows for a fact that his Italian wife is about to be blown up in her car. He was right about that, too. And Tom Hagen knows without question that "nobody has ever gunned down a New York police captain. Never." We don't even question that assertion or how Tom knows it. And Sonny knows that after Michael kills Sollozzo, he'll need to be exiled to Italy for "at least a year." He, too, was right. And Don Corleone figures out, based on who-knows-what, that Barzini and not Tattaglia was behind the gang war that led to Sonny's death.

Based on their track records, one can only conclude that these mobsters are bona fide geniuses and that their talents would be far better utilized running the country instead of New York's gangland.

All the while, most viewers are sitting there chomping away on their popcorn, completely sucked in by the story and the glamour of the mob and the high-octane acting and masterful direction, never once thinking, "This is rather silly, isn't it?"

And I hope I didn't ruin it for you.

The 'flag scene' from Modern Times: Greatest gag in the history of the cinema

Why, on earth, should men be offended merely because hotels regard them as potential rapists?

Men are getting second class treatment, solely because they are men, in some of America's most prestigious hotels: "Women-Only Hotels Heat Up." The Premier Hotel in Times Square is one of several major hotels with "women-only floors." The double "X" chromosome rooms are replete with oversized bathtubs, curling and flat irons, bath salts and loofahs, nail files, a vanity kit, yoga mats and women's magazines (O, Self, Cosmopolitan) -- all at no additional cost.

Nice, eh, guys? Women get their own private "no men allowed" floors with rooms that have more amenities than the rooms men are permitted to stay in -- at no additional cost -- just because they are women. In places of public accommodation. Hmm. I wonder how that works from a legal perspective . . . .

"'These women work very hard, and this might be the only time they will get to soak in a big tub and read a magazine,' says Premier marketing director Maureen O'Brien."

Of course men don't work very hard, do they, Ms. O'Brien? And no man in America likes to take a bath, especially in a big tub; nor do we read magazines, especially magazines geared to men. (In the rooms that are not for "women-only," do they have Popular Mechanics, or Maxim or any number of car or men's health magazines? Oh, I would bet a sizable sum of money they don't.)

It gets better: "That doesn't mean safety doesn't play a factor. Most female-only floors have added extra security--usually a key-card door and a female-only staff. 'It's nice to know that you won't have a gentleman walking on the floor, and, if you do, you know he's not supposed to be there,' says O'Brien."

Thank you, Premier Hotel, for stereotyping all men as potential rapists. She might as well have said "it's nice to know that one of them isn't walking on the floor . . . ." You know, one of us sub-humans.

Let's think about this critically. When was a rape last reported in the Premier Hotel? Or any of these other hotels? I suspect . . . never. Even the article concedes that the hotel "wasn't getting too many requests from female solo travelers looking for protection from male guests . . . ." (Which, I would guess, means that the hotel has never received any such requests.) In any event, we're constantly told that the vast majority of rapes are of the acquaintance variety, so isn't it fair to assume that the women who are in the most danger in these hotels are the ones who happen to be staying with -- oh, no! -- a dreaded male? Perhaps that's the real solution here: erect cages in the rooms where women can lock up their men -- you know, while the women enjoy all those free feminine amenities.

I'd like to hear a mother explain to her son why some places are off-limits to men, his daddy included. "Well, Timmy, you see, men can't all be trusted around women, and people like your sister, Susie, and I need to be protected from them." Wow! I mean, do we care at all what message we send to our sons? Or our daughters? Or do we delude ourselves into thinking that maybe they won't notice things like this?

If you're not convinced that this apartheid for women is unnecessary, unfair to the vast majority of men who would never harm a woman, and a step in precisely the wrong direction for women after all the progress they've made kicking down gender barriers, then ask yourself this: how far must society go to placate the members of one group who harbor fears -- irrational though they may be -- about another group? Suppose, for example, that whites insisted on "whites-only" floors in hotels for security reasons -- since we're constantly told that blacks commit more crimes than whites on a per capita basis. What do you imagine the reaction to that would be? Or suppose women wanted to ban Mexican housekeeping personnel from their "women-only" floors -- due to fears that Mexicans supposedly steal more than whites. Wouldn't it be nice to know that "one of them" isn't walking on the floor?

Ridiculous you say? Unfair? Of course it is. And wholly unAmerican, too. It attributes to individuals the worst traits of the class he or she was born into; it's the worst kind of bigotry.

But it's no more ridiculous, no more unfair, and no more unAmerican than segregating the genders in a place of public accommodation due to exaggerated -- and, yes, dare I say it, irrational -- feelings of insecurity. One group's irrationality should never trump another group's right to equal access -- even if the former are women and the latter are men.

And, seriously, what other group in America, aside from males, would tolerate being unfairly stereotyped in this manner with hardly a complaint? For now it's relatively isolated things like hotel rooms, but many cities of the world already have women-only buses and train cars. Maybe that's what's needed to wake up those chivalrous men who have no problem with women-only segregation: just wait to see their reactions when they are forced to stand at a freezing bus stop for twenty minutes while two or three women-only buses stop to pick up the -- ah -- more deserving passengers.

Perhaps such segregation is needed in some cultures, I don't know. I do know that in this country, it is an hysterical overreaction based on irrational fears, and that it manages to accomplish the seemingly impossible by slandering two genders at once -- it unfairly says that men can't be trusted around women, and that women are defenseless and need to be protected from men. Mainstream feminism doesn't like these segregation attempts, either, precisely because they tend to reverse the gains women have fought to achieve tearing down these very barriers.

For those less progressive women who just want to keep the menfolk at bay, be careful what you wish for, because you can't have it both ways. Sometime, somewhere, some men are going to decide to exclude you from some place or event, like they used to, based on rationales every bit as hysterical or silly or irrational as the ones posited by these hotels. We all know how you'll react to that. And rightly so.

Feminists applaud women's increased presence in the workforce accomplished by the misfortune to men

It's official. Despite the bellyaching of women's groups that more government stimulus money needs to be directed to women, The New York Times reported this morning that men have lost 82% of the jobs lost in this recession. This means that women might soon pass men in the work force as the gender with the most jobs.

How do women's groups react? Well, the leading feminist blog says that the increased women's presence in the job force is a "light" in darkness, and that the Times article is the "kind of article I like to see . . . ."

Did you get that? The economy isn't growing, it's shrinking. Women are not gaining jobs, but because of record job losses for men, women may soon be the gender with more jobs. And some feminists are applauding this -- as some sort of victory for women? A victory that is occurring because of the misfortune to men?

This is the sort of thinking that comes from viewing the world through a simplistic, unnuanced -- and at times mean-spirited -- gender lens. It's the sort of thinking that spawns disrepute of and marginalizes the entire modern feminist movement.

Oh, and by the way, most of the men out of work have wives or daughters who depend on their salaries. Nice "gain" for women.

"Did anyone see my other glove? I dropped it somewhere along the parade route."

Ladies, don't judge us all by guys like this -- most of us had no difficulty keeping our shirts and pants on after the Steelers victory

Anticipation: Chad Hermann is coming to the Post-Gazette on-line, starting Monday!

Carbolic Smoke Ball in February edition of Pittsburgh Magazine

Even informed liberals don't buy the gender wage gap myth

I am not interested in viewing my gender as a class of victims. By the same token, I reject the notion that men, as a class, are part of a vast conspiracy to subjugate women as a class. Too often when some women discuss the gender wage differential, it devolves into simplistic, knee jerk accusations that women are being unfairly and purposefully held back. Presumably by men, mainly.

There are plenty of real-world instances of gender discrimination, mostly against women. We have laws to guard against it, but these instances are not the norm. The 23 percent gender wage gap is not primarily caused by discrimination, and not even liberals who know what they are talking about believe it is.

Take former Clinton Labor Secretary and Obama advisor Robert Reich, for example. Reich is coming under heavy criticism for writing that the next economic stimulus should not all go to white male construction workers. Reich intended to say that the money should be spread around to as many groups as possible. But, as one can imagine, a white male construction worker trying to support a family who finds himself suddenly out of work doesn't think of himself as undeservedly privileged -- and do not care for the fact that Mr. Reich suggested that they are part of a class that already gets too much. But, hey, white men are quite used to being stereotyped as undeservedly privileged, even if personally they are not, as a result of irrational envy and resentment from the über-left. (In truth, it's always easier to blame your circumstance on being a victim than to take personal responsibility to change it.)

So, Mr. Reich has superlative credentials in the liberal community. What does an ultra-liberal who was actually secretary of labor and who actually knows what he's talking about think is the cause of the gender wage gap? Well, he doesn't buy into the world view that the 23 cent per dollar gender wage gap is due to discrimination. In an interview last year with the New York Times, Reich said: "About 50 percent of the differential has to do with different career choices made by women and men. Twenty-five percent involves greater time women spend on care-taking of children and elderly relatives. The other 25 percent is due to bias and prejudice in the labor market."

Wow! Funny, you don't hear that quote repeated very often. Discrimination, according to this liberal who actually knows what he's talking about, accounts for less than six percent of the gender wage gap. A centrist who knows what he or she is talking about would put that figure closer to zero.

In fact, objective studies show that women don't bargain the same way men do, and they are penalized for it in pay. That's a real difference of two or three cents per dollar that could be eliminated with some remedial training.

Anyway, ask your average male employer if he would hire a man for doing exactly the same job that he could get a similarly qualified woman to do for 23 percent less. Even a chauvinist wouldn't have to think about that one. In point of fact, if employers could always hire a similarly qualified woman to do exactly the same job a man does at a 23 percent discount, every man in America would be unemployed.

Good riddance, Antioch College

Here is what happens to a college where political correctness runs amok: it closes. Antioch is the college that "Saturday Night Live" ridiculed for this inane, offensive-to-humanity, date-rape policy:

". . . .The Womyn-drafted sexual-offense policy read: 'Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual contact/conduct in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking 'Do you want to have sex with me?' is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.' The penalty for even being accused of failing to obtain consent for one of the 'levels' was immediate expulsion without a hearing or any other rights. Not surprisingly, when word leaked out (it took a while) that Antioch's board of trustees had actually approved the policy and made it official, the reaction of the non-Antioch general public was . . . . laughter all around. One wag estimated that Antioch required a student seeking a home run in the baseball game of sex to ask for the consent of his beloved a total of 150 times."
Taken from this article

Males stay friends longer

Chimps Remain Friends for a Long Time
A decade-long study has tracked their behavior

According to a new research, chimpanzees are very likely to form social bonds that keep them together for prolonged periods of time. This is especially true for males, which have been reported to remain in close contact with each other for as long as 7 years. Females, on the other hand, leave the colony when they become mature enough, and are therefore less likely to create long-lasting social bonds with other females. Nearly all males engage in social activities, but the reason why they do this is still unknown. Read the rest here

February edition of Pittsburgh Magazine: Check out the article on Carbolic Smoke Ball

Thoughts on "The Hit"

Three Thoughts:

1. It was one of the, if not the single, greatest plays of Ryan Clark's career, a shame he won't have any recollection of it.
   
2. I heard Santana and CCR while McGahee lie on the field, way to go whatever classless idiot is running the sound board at Heinz Field.
3. Pittsburgh redeemed itself in the class department though, as the only thing you could hear as McGahee left on the stretcher was a guy yell, "Good Luck Willis". Even after scoring Baltimore's two TDs.
   

Steelers fans: For that special gal in your life . . .

It's the Steelers Sexy G-String Thong Bikini. Who needs Steely McBeam when that special someone is decked out in one of these thong bikinis! Support the black and gold by getting your lady into as little black and gold as possible! Go Steelers!

Michael Jordan

J.A. Adande, a journalist I respect in a sport I could care less about (basketball) wrote a brilliant piece today on the last king of sport, Michael Jordan. He recalls his experience 10 years ago covering the retirement of MJ from the Bulls (Can you believe, that was 10 years ago?!). A few of my favorite quotes from the article (which really is worth a full read):

• There'll never be another Jordan the way there'll never be another Johnny Carson or another Walter Cronkite. Individuals don't hold our interest that regularly and that long anymore.
• We no longer bother to ask our athletes to rescue us anymore. The best we can do is kindly request they don't shoot us in the club.
• On that cold Chicago day 10 years ago, athletes still felt like historic figures worth chronicling.

Remains of young soldier, missing for 146 years, are found

The remains of a young Civil War soldier, between 18 and 21-years old and already a seasoned New York state volunteer, were discovered on the Battlefield of Antietam in western Maryland. The young man was fighting with his regiment at the battle of Antietam, a blood-soaked clash where about 23,100 soldiers were killed, wounded, captured or declared missing on Sept. 17, 1862.

This young man, missing for 146 years, is a reminder -- to us -- to stop and ponder every now and again that our gender has always been the one called upon to deal with life's most brutal, most vicious adversaries in defense of our loved ones and our cherished beliefs. Despite the cries of "undeserved male privilege" from angry, radical feminists, throughout history, men -- especially young men -- have always stepped up and assumed these burdens.

Affirmative action for men is OK

In a recent article discussing the gender divide in higher education, Audrey Kahane writes: "To avoid ending up with a campus that is 75 percent female, admissions officers at a number of schools are practicing affirmative action for men. Men are admitted if they are qualified, but women need to be more qualified and have a 'hook' to set them apart."

I don't know if the author intended us to be outraged by this revelation or merely startled. I am neither, of course. At this moment in our history, boys need more help when it comes to education than girls, period. Heaven knows there have been enough programs over the past several decades affording women special treatment in areas where it was felt they are being held back by their gender. Why should this be different?

But there are plenty of people who think it's a bad idea -- because, somehow, they surmise, it will hurt girls. To hell with the boys.

In fact, helping the boys keep up with the girls won't hurt the girls. When either gender falls behind, we all fall behind. In any event, in the college setting, even young women want a significant portion of the student body to be male, for social reasons.

But none of that will stop the naysayers. You know who they are:

*They are the same people who don't have any problem that during FY 2007, 158,935 names and addresses of suspected violators of the duty to register with the Selective Service System were provided to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for their failure to register, carrying a penalty up to five years in prison. Every one of the violators was male -- because young women are exempt from even registering.

*They are the same people who don't have any problem with the government furnishing women special advantages when they go to start a small business -- even though study after study shows men are still the ones far more interested in starting new businesses.

*They are the same people who see no problem when a college bars men from gyms during certain times because their very presence offends certain Muslim women. This, despite the fact that the men pay tuition the same as the Muslim women (assuming, of course, the Muslim women aren't in college on some free-ride program).

*They are the same people who see no problem when a responsible young man is charged considerably more for auto insurance than an irresponsible young woman, simply because he was born male.

*They are the same people who think it's perfectly fine that government funds for breast cancer research outpace funding for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one even though prostate cancer and breast cancer have roughly the same caseload.

*They are the same people who think it's wonderful that commercial entities pay inordinate attention to breast cancer and don't seem to notice that commercial entities ignore illnesses that afflict males. Death among young men due to testicular cancer in the 15-34 age group outpaces the number of deaths from breast cancer among women in the same age group. When did you hear of a commercial entity raising money for testicular cancer? What I see are young men helping to raise awareness about breast cancer while young women can't even say the word "testicular" without laughing.

*They are the same people who never make a peep that women outlive men worldwide by ten years; that men have higher death rates for all 15 leading causes of death (except Alzheimer’s); that men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 94% of job related deaths; that males between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide; that overall, men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women; that innocent males are far more likely than females to be crime victims.

*They are the same people who contend that women are the primary victims of war when, in fact, victims of war -- both combatants and non-combatants -- are more likely to be male.

*They are the same people who assume that women overall get paid less than men because of anti-female discrimination when that is not the case. In reality, the wage gap exists for many legitimate reasons, including: (1) Men work longer hours at more demanding and hazardous jobs; (2) Men are more likely to travel, relocate or have long commutes for their jobs; and (3) Men are more likely to have more years and more consecutive years of experience, because women are more likely to work part time or take years off of work to care for their children.

Men historically have looked out for women's interests above their own -- you know, chivalry and all that nonsense. (And, yes, in this day and age, it is nonsense -- paying for the woman when the couple goes out to eat; holding doors for one gender as opposed to another; waiting for women to exit the elevator first, etc.) All that conditioning to value women's needs above men's -- and make no mistake, both men and women are conditioned to think that way -- comes with a price when males are really in need of help.

And when it comes to higher education, the guys really are in need of help. Something is going on with males that is holding them back when it comes to higher education. Is it the feminization of our educational system from the earliest grades, where boys exhibiting typically rambunctious male behavior are punished and drugged with Ritalin? Is it that the push to get girls to do better in school has worked so well we've completely ignored the boys? Is it that guys find the college setting pointless, with a multitude of courses that don't play any real role in acquiring skills needed to earn a living -- a fact more obvious to young men than young women given that the former are still told they must be the "breadwinner"? Is it that the guys find the college setting downright inhospitable, with sexual assault indoctrination that paints their entire gender as predatory, and with women's studies programs teaching students that men are the primary exponents and beneficiaries of an evil system that oppresses women?

Maybe it's a combination of all these things?

Regardless, isn't it a shame that when young guys are the ones now getting a little bit of help -- because they need it -- the first reaction of a lot of supposedly enlightened people is to be outraged?

False rape claims are a problem for innocent men and boys

Here is a great article on the prevalence of false rape claims -- must-reading for all men and for all women who care about them (especially mothers of teenage boys). I think we can all agree there are too many rapes and too many false rape claims and that there's no reason we can't all work together to eradicate both.

Another study debunks the two percent false rape canard

January 6th, 2009 by Pierce Harlan

Radical feminism has enjoyed almost unchallenged success in convincing lawmakers and university administrators that when it comes to rape, one gender is incapable of telling a lie, while the other is incapable of anything but lying.

From the faulty premise that women do not lie about rape follow the equally faulty but still widely accepted premises that there is no such thing as a false rape claim, and that conviction rates for rape are far too low. To help jack up those rates – or, in the twisted logic that follows from those faulty premises, to help justice be better served – laws and policies are changed to provide rape accusers with special accommodations allowed to no other criminal complainant. Read the rest of the article here

"For richer or for poorer...

"in accordance with Section 2, Paragraph B
of the Antenuptial Agreement, dated December 21, 2008, and
included herein by reference..."

Another Wonderful Event

Thanks to the great Erik Fry, to his colleagues at the Pittsburgh Mills Borders, and to all of the folks who came out to chat and have us sign copies of Zombies Ate My Headlines. We had a wonderful time Saturday, and we're already looking forward to coming back out to the Mills later this year for another event. Stay tuned for details.

If you missed yesterday's event, you can still swing by the Pittsburgh Mills Borders and pick up a signed copy; they have several in stock and on display. And remember -- you can also get a signed copy of Zombies right here, and have it shipped straight to your door.

Amazing how a little paint spruces things up

And -- because everytime we do this someone from the female gender complains -- something for the ladies:

23 Pennsylvanians died in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, all men

The Trib had a great page in yesterday's paper picturing all 23 Pennsylvanians who died in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

All of them were men.

I know that women are serving -- and some are dying there -- but the vast majority serving in the armed forces, and an even greater percentage dying, are men.

I must be candid, as politically incorrect as this might sound, whenever I hear someone mention "the men and women serving in Iraq," I fear it might suggest to some people that women play a greater role than they really do, perhaps even an equal role. And this is not to denigrate the service of women, but the greatest sacrifice in war is always made by young men.

Of the 23 Pennsylvania men killed last year, four were in their 30s, one was in his 40s and one was in his 50s. The rest were in their 20s or teens. Yes, teens.

So despite all the male bashing rants and ads and sitcoms; and despite the colleges that force young men to sit through indoctrination -- er, I mean orientation to "teach" them not to rape (because we're all rapists, don't you know); and despite the colleges that ban men from gyms for certain times because our very presence offends Muslim (and, I am sure other) women -- when it comes to life's most terrible challenge, war, it is the lives of young men that are mostly on the line. For most of our history, young men had no choice in the matter. This group went voluntarily.

We thank them. We pray for them.

Carbolic Smoke Ball's Chad Hermann on the air today

Today at 4 p.m., the great Chad Hermann will be a guest on 1360 am, WMNY.