Sports!

This story has gone from somewhat intriguing and revealing to obnoxious pretty fast.  Richard Petty, retired NASCAR great, said Danica Patrick could only win a race if nobody else showed up, and noted that most of the attention she gets is because she's a woman.

It reminds me of when I told someone I didn't like the WNBA because they couldn't dunk, and the response was, "Neither can you."  I was confused - when did I ever say I wanted to watch myself play basketball on TV?  The response was completely beside the point.  If I can't beat a WNBA professional basketball in a one-on-one game - and I absolutely cannot - does that mean that I have to watch the WNBA now?  Similarly, if 76-year-old Richard Petty does race Danica and he loses, does that mean that Danica Patrick is a better driver now than Richard Petty ever was?  There's precedent for these sorts of Battle of the Sexes moments, but I really don't think there's anything to learn from them.

It seems like the point is humiliating Richard Petty rather than addressing his argument.  This seems to be a common theme among the liberal-minded.

This rule is being considered by the NFL.  I actually think it's a bad idea.

I found myself nodding in agreement to like 85% of this.

I want wildly fast internet...  I'm told Austin is getting it soon, which just isn't fair.

I've struggled to describe my position on climate change.  On the one hand, I think that global warming could very well be real, and there could very well be important negative consequences if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.  That said, I reject many of the proffered solutions and wonder whether we really understand the issue and the science as well as we claim.  Moreover, I object to the idea of "settled science," which seems to me to be an oxymoron.  Happily, Charles Krauthammer describes my position for me.  (Of course, as if on schedule, assorted climate change proponents petitioned to keep this article from being published.)

Who is your nemesis?  What about archenemy?  I need to think about this...

The pushback against Sheryl Sandberg continues.  I tend to think there is some value to this position, but I protest the implied notion that these two positions cannot co-exist.

Arthur Chu's winning streak continues, and so does the bizarre analysis of why people can't stand it.  This idea is the first one I found compelling, though mostly becuase the author kinda acknowledges that it's not a compelling argument.  But it reminds me of a story a friend told me about her mom.  She was playing squash with someone, and the court they used had a dead corner, where if you hit it there, the ball would just die (and her mom would win the point).  Her mom was new to the game, so she was more than happy to exploit this to win, to the frustration of her opponent.  The friend told me this story with apparent glee, but I was at best neutral, and more likely negative on the story.  "It's not within the spirit of the game," I protested, even though no rules were broken.

If there's an argument for anything at all, it's for amending the rules to reflect more accurately the "spirit" of the game.  But when such proposals occasionally come up in other contexts, the ensuing blowback occasionally reveals the idiocy of the suggested change.

Responses to "Spa-ing":

1. Anyone with the discipline to go through all those questions already has his life together.

2. To kids everywhere: the bar has been raised.

4. I've heard good things.  FX is pretty solid.

6. Isn't the origin story really just the last two sentences of the penultimate paragraph?

7. That sounds awesome.

Responses to "Cooking...":

2. There's a risk of overplaying their hand.  That said, people are starting to attack individuals who are noting the struggles they've had with finding coverage under Obamacare.  That makes me a bit uneasy.

3. This might need to happen for me soon...

6. I have a bit more sympathy for the Red Cross because it's better to be safe than sorry.  That said, the AIDS epidemic has receded, and it may be time to reconsider the policy.  But that said, note the overheated rhetoric.  Do they really think that the policy was the result of homophobia on the part of the FDA?

7. Co-sign.

8. I have a problem with this response, even though I also have a problem with guys complaining about getting friend-ed.  Yes, it's a self-centered response, but there is actual disappointment there, and treating a guy who was rejected by a girl with ridicule and scorn is a pretty immature response in its own right.  Girls can hold their ground with respect to their lack of reciprocal romantic feelings for a guy and also recognize that disappointment is real.  This is such a hostile response.

9. We should all be a lot nicer to bunnies, apparently.

B