Like the “good” conservatives that they are, the women at Fox News support Title IX regulations. I heard quite a few celebrate the fact that the US has sent more women than men to the 2012 London Olympics.
Title IX regulations, which impose gender quotas on sports for institutions that receive any federal money. …
Title IX regulations have forced educational institutions to eliminate men’s teams until the number of men and women on sports teams is the same ratio as the number of men and women enrolled in academic classes. In the numerous colleges that are now 60 percent female in academic enrollment, Title IX requires that men’s teams be eliminated until only 40 percent of the athletes are men.
Title IX quotas have caused the elimination of all but 19 men’s college gymnastics teams. This deprives boys of the scholarship incentive to take up gymnastics as a sport in high school and takes away the competition needed to improve their skills in college.
Granted, they are sweet. Look at these eager young faces; the lithe, lean bodies, the unabashed pursuit of victory, the brutal regimen required to become the best, the irrepressible spirit that compels athletes to submit to the grueling grind. It is all so very exhilarating.
But c’mon: if you are a basketball fan, for example, how can you settle for the inferior game the women play? For me, the high point of the competition is the American-dominated, testosterone-fueled, always magnificent, 100-meter men’s dash.
“Yes, MM, sports is important. I have been a runner for the last 22 years—and not because my (Israeli) high- and middle school instilled the love of the effort in me. And, as to who would I rather watch play: Kobe Bryant for the U.S. men’s basketball team? Or the equivalent woman star (whose name no one, but her parents, cares about, b/c she is incapable physiologically of matching the thrill of watching Bryant)? The answer is obvious. The reality cannot be tweaked by central planning. Not should it be legislated away.
“Had a rare video surfaced in which a black toddler was being brutalized by agents of the Transportation Security Administration, President Barack Obama would have enough solidarity, and some to spare. ‘If he had a son, he’d look like the boy whose breeches were breached by adults who should know better.’
I don’t wish the homegrown terrorists of the TSA to become equal-opportunity offenders; I want Congress to call off these attack dogs, now.
Still, I am unconvinced that when they travel, black women, tots, and geriatrics are subjected to the same invasive searches as are whites.
My own experience this month was uneventful. I was spared the rogering I’ve endured in the past, thanks, I believe, to the advice of WND’s Commentary Editor: wear loose clothing. A young TSA agent waved me by.
I did see a tall and handsome TSA worker working-over a little old man (aged 80, perhaps). The agent was black; his victim Caucasian. It looked as though the former was examining the hunched old man’s colostomy bag. It took the agent forever. He appeared to be enjoying himself.
I lingered as long as I could, to bear witness. The cruel ordeal was still underway when I left the scene, some 15 minutes later.
Dare I say it? The girl who—no doubt by fluke—did not violate my constitutional, fourth-amendment rights to be free of “unreasonable searches and seizures” was Caucasian.
A previous flying experience saw me subjected to—what are the odds?—the ministrations of a large African-American woman, who summoned me with a crooked finger for a pat down. In no time at all, her giant digits were on my chest and between my legs.
Amassed online is a critical mass of images in which TSA workers, often minorities, are feeling up and humiliating the most vulnerable members of white America—kids, old men and women, often infirm and incapacitated.
Twenty one and a half percent of TSA employees are black, and 13.1 percent Latino. At 10.5 percent and 10 percent respectively, the equivalent representation of aggrieved groups in the private sector merely mirrors their numbers in the larger population (serving, no doubt, to keep litigation at bay).
Moreover, like most federal agencies, the TSA is known to provide sheltered employment to a segment of the population which Sibel Edmonds, a courageous whistle blower, has described as “low-level, incompetent, scandalous, molesting, abusive, and in some cases criminal people who have been creating one scandal after another.”
TSA action is immortalized in countless YouTube clips. …”
If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.
UPDATE I: The serious Japanese are Laughing (and it takes a lot to make them chuckle):
UPDATE II (June 2): To the repulsive David B, in Comments:
My rational, sane readers know my writing as the kind that cleaves to reality, is objective, and objectivist. Aesthetics, art, music: These are aspects of the culture that I comment on at length. This is nothing new. I’ve commented on my idea of female beauty and manliness. These, like my concept of what constitutes good music, are absolute. These assessments exist irrespective of what I find sexually attractive or politically desirable. I thought Jackie Kennedy was spectacular as a woman. Does that mean I am attracted to her? Does that imply I’m a Democrat? What nonsense. The Don Draper character in “Mad Men” is good looking, objectively speaking. Does that mean I want to jump his bones? Iman the model in lovely. And black.
Crass, stupid racialists see the world through their narrow prism of politics and race. They are postmodernists, in this sense, reducing objective reality to subjective likes and dislikes that serve their personal ego-related and political needs.
I’ll repeat the reality I observed at the Newark airport recently: The black gentleman I observed assaulting the helpless, ancient white man was tall, fit, well-groomed and good-looking (in the sense that he could have obtained employment with a modeling agency). Do these objective observations mean I was attracted to him? How stupid can you be?
Did I despise him for his actions? You bet.
His actions, more than anything else about him, condemned him as a man and human being.
“They seemed like complete stupid idiots. I was surprised that every time he [the Secret Service agent] danced with me, he lifted up his sweater so I could see [his ripped abs].”
Beefcake unburdened by brains is how Colombian call girl Dania Suárez described the Special Forces agents who solicited her services at the Hotel El Caribe in Cartagena, Colombia, prior to President Obama’s arrival in that country for the April, 2012, Summit of the Americas.
The “morons,” said the sassy Suárez, “drank liberally and acted boisterously, one of them jumping onto the bar.” Nor were they shy about petitioning Suárez and her sex-worker colleagues for favors.
Our boys abroad were clearly practiced pros.
Slightly more uplifting was the news that one of the married Secret Service agents who serves the president at the pleasure of the American taxpayer likes “normal sex.”
Kinky carnality, however, is preferable to a man who does not honor a contract. The agent refused to pay Suárez the $800 dollars he owed her, which is why this tempest in a C-Cup blew up in the first place.
Fortunately for the errant agent, “paid sex is legal in Cartagena.” Rather than call on a pimp, the prostitute petitioned local law enforcement for redress. A pimp would have likely worked the agent over good and proper.
All in all, a million here and there for a good time is nothing in the grand scheme of the tricks turned by the Empire’s foot-soldiers and stooges—and the toll these tricks take.
Come to think of it, if regular visits with prostitutes kept the political class from launching trillion-dollar war- and welfare programs, and financing Fanny, Freddy and the Fed—I would personally contribute to a prostitution fund for Washington whores.
I want working for government to be one of the most dangerous jobs ever (unfortunately, the honest work of fishermen earns that distinction). So here’s my Swiftian suggestion:
Yes to radical affirmative action in the secret service. Not only should women and minorities be well-represented among the parasites’ security details; but they should be overrepresented.
Adjust admission tests, physical and cognitive, to rule out all so-called (wink-wink) cultural or gender bias. In other words, make the tests easier, or admit the desired gender and race with lower scores. Drop the IQ requirements by two standard deviations! And a bull’s eye on the target be damned. The new-intake shooters don’t need to drop an attacker; they can settle for grazing him.
ALSO, support the super obese for the secret service too! Smother the sons-of-guns in mountains of protective flesh, female, male or other.
