Perhaps its just my perception, but perhaps the reason that there are so few men taking wine-tasting and tennis classes in New York City is not that they are uninterested in the subject, but that the men who have these interests are already dating each other.

I'm kidding. Mostly.

Ann Althouse takes another stab at answering the question:

Men prefer to look at something they have decided to do and figure it out on their own. They like to observe, analyze, and discover. They accept the risks and enjoy the excitement of trial and error. They don't like sitting around having someone tell them what to do, and they aren't intrigued by the prospect of meeting women who spend so much time doing something they loathe.

Now, I just made that up, but it was no more made up than the explanation in the article.

Althouse is a lot closer to reality than the loopy NY Times reporter.

I don't know any of my male friends who would sign up for a class to learn how to do anything; typically if they're interested in a subject, they'll ask a buddy for pointers or just dive right in. The trial and error is part of what makes new experiences worthwhile.

Of course, the choice of activity matters a great deal as well.

Look at the list of classes chosen by these desperate women: "tennis, running, sailing, horseback riding, fitness boot camp and scuba diving classes" and "golf, cooking or music class," and "Thai kickboxing or jazz appreciation."

Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single straight men in the age groups these women are targeting? Cooking and music classes? Thai kickboxing and jazz appreciation? These might appeal to men when they get older, but most younger single men have very little interest in these subjects, and even if they did, as Althouse correctly observed, they'd just do it.

If these women wanted to meet men, they'll find out what men like and where they hang out, and go there.

Somehow, I doubt that advice will lead them back to a jazz appreciation class.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I feel no sympathy whatsoever for any single person in NYC who is incapable of finding a mate. Having lived the the same neighborhood as she did, let me confirm what every single man already knows. GO TO A BAR FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! IF YOU WANT TO MEET A GUY GO TO A BAR, ORDER A DRINK, COUNT TO 10. Here's are three places to start. Molly's on 3rd Ave, Telephone Bar & Grill on 2nd Ave M J Armstrongs on 1st Ave.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at May 18, 2007 12:39 PM (oC8nQ)

2 I don't know any older men either who are interested in those subjects. When I was interested in meeting men, I started a Monday Night Football Party at my house. Started with 3 guys who I already knew and were good friends and over the next three years the group grew to anywhere from 10 to 30 guys on any given night. As the group grew, I even made it "bring your own beer" but I always had the snacks and comfy chairs or big pillows to lounge on on the floor. At first I felt like I had to play hostess and would jump up and wait on the guys, but as the weeks went on they started treating me like their mascot and began to cater to my needs. Many of these Monday Night Football parties extended over to weekend BBQ's and other casual activities. A girlfriend who stopped by unexpectedly said the next day, "how does a middle age average looking woman get some of the best looking guys in town to hang out with her?" My answer, "become one of the guys." I'm happy to say that most of those guys are still good friends of mine and always invite me to any parties they have and this is 20 years later.

Posted by: Pal2Pal at May 18, 2007 01:11 PM (hGL+y)

3 There's only one activity in that list that require classes and that's scuba, otherwise you won't get certified. Maybe sailing because it's not an intuitive activity. But jazz appreciation? You go, you listen, you appreciate. Or not. Running? You put one foot in front of the other at a quicker pace than walking. That is called running. Class dismissed. Horseback riding? There's a reason women enjoy this more than men. The big problem is the women themselves. They get interested in something because they think men are interested? No. You get interested in something that interests you and then you meet people with the same interests. Sweet Jeebus, how hard a concept is that to grasp?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 18, 2007 01:20 PM (kxecL)

4 Well that explains why these women are looking for men instead of men looking for them.

Posted by: 1sttofight at May 18, 2007 02:31 PM (51r8a)

5 What the hell do these women want to meet men for in the first place? They claim not to need them; have no respect for them; have made beatin' up on men, particularly white men, the national pasttime; and wouldn't know a real man - the kind worth having - if they fell over one. Which they probably have. Reap = sow.

Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 02:43 PM (asVsU)

6 Cindi!?!? They're going to pull your card.

Posted by: CoRev at May 18, 2007 03:08 PM (0U8Ob)

7 Nope, CoRev, they can bring it on but it's not gonna happen. I'm a firm believer and practioner of our 2A. Heh. I calls 'em as I sees 'em; that's what a REAL WOMAN does.

Posted by: Cindi at May 18, 2007 03:50 PM (asVsU)

8 After 12 years in the Marines I have an intense distrust of anyone that goes running with nobody making them. Do people really take classes to learn how? Just move to a bad neighborhood. It worked for me.

Posted by: iaintbacchus at May 18, 2007 04:35 PM (mYHGQ)

9 Ever since Rudy cleaned up Times Square it's been hard to find a bunch of available guys in one place.

Posted by: Tim at May 18, 2007 08:14 PM (WiHUE)

10 I was living in NYC in the '80s when that guy's parents got tired of paying for a professional student, so he went and started "The Learning Annex" distributed free on the street. You could sign up for courses in basket-weaving, wine and cheese tasting, how to lose a Brooklyn accent, how to get one for an acting job, etc.etc. We would read these at the pubs and wait till the gals came out to party. Never took one of those courses; if I want learn something, I just read blueprints and manuals, or find an expert on my own.

Posted by: Tom TB at May 19, 2007 05:08 AM (h/YdH)

11 "Now honestly... how men of these activities are of interest to most single straight men in the age groups these women are targeting?" Hey! HEY! Scuba diving and golf - not activities straight men are interested in? Wrongo, bub. As someone else on this thread mentioned, classes are mandatory in scuba unless you're not looking to get certified. And, as someone who's enjoyed the sport since 18 years of age, I can tell you that anyone who doesn't feel they need the instruction is playing with his life. As for golf: well, let's just say that 1) Tiger Woods still signs up for instruction and 2) I don't want to spend 10 years trying to figure it out on my own enough to not be the worst golfer within 50 miles! I'm 100% with you on the jazz appreciation.

Posted by: Ric James at May 19, 2007 07:16 AM (AS/pd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Take this for what it's worth:

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.

The researchers' re-analysis involved new statistical calculations and a modern chemical analysis of bullets from the same batch Oswald is purported to have used. They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination in Dallas.

[snip]

Tobin, Spiegelman and James said they bought the same brand and lot of bullets used by Oswald and analyzed their lead using the new standards. The bullets from that batch are still on the market as collectors' items.

They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used -- and the government accepted at the time -- to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained.

If I'm reading this right, there is no new evidence of a second shooter, just a criticism of the bullet analysis used at the time.

How they can jump from questioning the methodology, to postulating that there may have been three or more bullets and a second gunman, should be a red flag. They have no data to support their third bullet/second gunman theories.

Retro-Trutherism. How chic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.

A question for parents: how would you feel if your child's teacher terrorized your child?

Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.

The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.

"We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he said.

But parents of the sixth-grade students were outraged.

"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.

The children in this incident emerged physically unscathed, but that outcome was not guaranteed. The students could have just as easily panicked and attempted to escape, at which point the 69 student could have trampled one another, causing serious injuries.

The school principal, Catherine Stephens, in a hidious understatement, said that the staff members involved exhibited "poor judgment." The school Web site says the teachers involved considered the act of edu-terrorism a "prank."

Poor judgement? A prank? A teacher berating a child in front of their class for getting an answer wrong exhibits poor judgment. A camp prank is "short-sheeting" a bed.

The staff and teachers of Scales Elementary School premeditated and carried out a plot in which almost six dozen children were purposefully convinced they might die. In any other situation, such a threat, serious or not, would and should be viewed as a criminal act.

A real example of poor judgment in this instance would be the continued employment of these sadists as teachers. I hope that Murfreesboro City Schools has better judgement than that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Rueters:

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

Pressed on whether there would be actual violence, Royal said: "I think so, I think so," referring specifically to France's volatile suburbs hit by widespread rioting in 2005.

[snip]

At the start of her campaign, Royal refused to refer to her opponent, but with time running against her she has changed tactics and has relentlessly lambasted him this past week.

On Friday she said he had exacerbated social tensions during his time as interior minister and added that he was unable to enter some neighborhoods for fear of provoking violence. The suburbs were hit by widespread riots in 2005.

Wouldn't it help if we knew which groups Royal thought might riot, and the nature of the social tensions that would cause them to do so?

If they can't confront the problem enough to even mention who was rioting (primarily poorly assimilated North African Muslim youths) and why (economic hopelessness, cultural divides, among others), then they will never solve the underlying problems leading to this kind of behavior.

Get used to the idea of vague people starting riots for vague reasons in France for many years to come.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

As many of you know, I work part-time at a sporting goods store behind the gun counter. This past Saturday, a rather frail couple I'd estimate to be in their early fifties--a local man, and his sister visiting from Florida, they said--stopped me to ask where they could find a whistle.

An orange whistle; they were very adamant about that.

We didn't happen to have any orange whistles in stock, and I inquired as to why they were so intent on getting a whistle in that particular color. The brother informed me that they had had a rash of recent muggings in the community in Florida where the sister lived, and they thought that whistle was the best way to protect her against a possible mugging.

My eyebrows went up with that. I asked where she intended to keep the whistle, and she stated quickly, as if I was daft, that she'd keep it in her purse.

I just looked at them for a few seconds, hoping they'd make the connection.

They didn't.

"You mean the same purse that a mugger would likely grab?" I offered, trying to point out their obviously flawed logic. Instead of realizing their Carlos Mencia "dee dee dee!" moment, they shifted gears.

"What about pepper spray?"

"And where would you keep that?"

She started to answer, "In my pu-"

The brother, starting to get agitated, cut her off.

"Do you have it, or not?" he said tersely.

I replied that we didn't, and then I took the conversation where they didn't want to go.

"Ma'am, you live in Florida, correct?"

She did.

"You are aware that Florida have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the United States?"

I may as well have suggested raping a chicken. The looks of horror and disgust should have been comical, but all I felt was sad.

At that point I gave up and directed them to the closest place that I was aware of that had pepper spray for sale. They left, very quickly. I never did find out why they were so adamant about having an orange whistle. Perhaps they thought muggers were afraid of that particular color.

A whistle has not, as far as I am aware, stopped a determined assailant, as often as I've heard them recommended as a form of self defense by one un-serious group or another. All an assailant has to do it pluck it from your lips, or more likely, attempt to use his fist to smash it down your throat.

Whistles only provide the illusion of safety, which is all these people and others like them actually want. They want to think they're taking steps to protect themselves or others, even when they aren't.

I almost never have to time to take these customers down the logical path, as they typically eject themselves from the conversation once their illusion is challenged.

I'd love to ask them what they expect to happen if they are able to actually blow their whistle, but rarely get the chance.

Do they expect that a police officer will just happen to be within the hundred-yard or so range of such a whistle, with his radio off and his squad car windows down so that he can hear their single, brief bleat?

Do they expect other citizens to come running to their rescue and potentially place their lives in jeopardy, when the victims themselves would not?

Whistlers, however you cut it, are sheep... and self-important, arrogant sheep at that.

Whatever their physical gifts, they are psychologically unwilling to defend themselves, and yet expect others to come running to their rescue when things get predatory. They don't want the responsibility of protecting their own lives, and expect others to do it for them.

Bring on more unarmed victim zones. Buy more whistles. Expect others to come to your defense, even though you wouldn't come to theirs.

Baaaaa...

I hope orange whistle lady wises up, but I'm rather sadly confident that she won't. Some illusions are just too comforting for some people to let go of them, not matter how useless and stupid they are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.