Speak for Yourself, Charlotte

WaPo’s Charlotte Allen actually wrote a whole article about how women are stupid. It’s like she’s living through 1962 again, and second-wave feminism hasn’t happened yet.

There is, um, robust commentary on the blogosphere today regarding this article. Best comment so far is from Atrios:

It turns out the Post did have someone on the “other side” of the “are women stupid” debate. It turns out the conflict was not between whether women are stupid or not, it’s between whether they’re stupid or fickle. …

… Hopefully Camille Paglia will be along next week to tell us that the answer is, of course, both! Then we can put all this behind us and move on to more important issues. I suggest the inscrutability of Asians, or perhaps the brain/penis size tradeoff men face, but others may have some better ideas.

Find links to other observations here. I just want to answer one line:

What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?

I have two answers to that. First, if it weren’t for our lapses in judgment, the species would have died out a long time ago. Second, do we want to spell out what it is that men always fall for? And that makes them smarter, somehow?

While We Were Campaigning

Although he’s still in the White House, George W. Bush has already faded from out national attention. It’s more fun to think about what shiny new President we might get in January than to have to deal with the clunker in the garage.

Turns out the rest of the world feels the same way. Glenn Kessler writes in today’s Washington Post that heads of state in the Middle East are pretty much tuning out the Bushies.

When Palestinians broke through the barrier dividing the Gaza Strip and Egypt in January and streamed across the border by the tens of thousands, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak faced a moment of crisis. His phone soon rang, but the world leader offering help on the other end was not President Bush — it was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mubarak took the call, resulting in the first such contact between leaders of the two nations since relations were severed nearly three decades ago.

The conversation signaled a growing rapprochement between Egypt, which receives nearly $2 billion in annual aid from Washington, and Iran, a country that the Bush administration has tried to isolate as a possible threat to U.S. interests in the region.

Way to go, Bushies.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads back to the Middle East this week, three months after Bush hosted a peace conference bringing together Israelis and Arabs in Annapolis, prospects for peace have shifted dramatically. There has been little clear movement in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, while the Iranian-backed militant group Hamas has shown increasingly that it can set the region’s agenda.

Hamas rockets have continued to rain down on Israeli towns, prompting deadly counterattacks by Israel amid increasing speculation that Israel will invade the narrow coastal strip housing 1.5 million Palestinians that it abandoned just two years ago.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said that key players in the region are moving beyond the Bush administration.

Get this:

“The feeling is that if you keep the flash points on a lower or somewhat higher flame, it will give you more cards when a new administration comes in,” he said, speaking in a phone interview from Israel. “Everyone is sucking up to the Iranians,” he added.

This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Pablo Bachelet writes for McClatchy Newspapers:

President Bush has increased aid to Latin America by record amounts and visited Latin America more than any of his predecessors, but his legacy may be the biggest loss of U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere in recent memory.

He remains unpopular and unable to pass initiatives that Latin Americans want, such as immigration reform and free-trade pacts. Trade between South America and China is booming. Governments from Canada to Iran are cutting deals in the region, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has made challenging U.S. interests his foreign-policy mission, through everything from sweet oil deals to a TV news channel that rivals CNN.

”Requiem for the Monroe Doctrine” is how academic Daniel Erikson put it in an article for Current History, referring to the 1823 declaration by President James Monroe that put the Western Hemisphere off-limits to outside powers.

Meanwhile, as Dan Froomkin reports, the POTUS from Hell remains clueless but happy. “Does Bush not recognize what a mess he has created for his party?” Froomkin asks. I’m betting he doesn’t.