Cracked

In Alaska a few days ago there was a swim meet. The winner was a 17 year old girl who  also happened to be the state champion. After the victory, she was disqualified by one of the judges.

What was her egregious rule violation? Did she test positive for drugs? No. Did she leave the starting area too soon and thereby gain an unfair advantage? No. Did she splash water in the face of an opponent? No. Did she reach across her lane and grab the leg of a fellow swimmer, slowing her down? No.

According to the official who nailed her, she was guilty of intergluteal cleft exposure. To be more specific, her butt cheeks were touching each other. AHA.

So, she was wearing an illegal swimsuit which gave here butt cheeks an unfair advantage? Well, no. She was wearing the same swimsuit she had worn before at other meets she had won. One provided by her school. The same one every other girl on the team was wearing.

Before I go on, let me digress.

In 1967 a zoologist name Desmond Morris wrote a book titled “The Naked Ape”. I recall reading it because it had the word “Naked” in the title.  Among other things there was a section about the development of sexual attraction in primates. He hypothesized concerning the evolution of human sexual attraction. Morris could not figure out why males are attracted to highly developed mammary glands. (If Jack is reading this, that means:  Why guys like big boobs).

After all, the function of mammary glands is to  produce milk. Hardly the elixir of love. Hey, baby, can I offer you a grassfed or a 2% low fat?

So, Morris hypothesized (read: imagined) that , like other primates, sexual attraction for men center on the female gluteus maximus (butt). That “rear entry” is the usual form of intercourse for most primates, except those who had been visited by Christian missionaries. So, as Morris further opined the development of large mammaries was an evolutionary adaptation. They mimicked the round ,large gluteal muscles that males find so fascinating. So, women had boobs because they look like butts. OK. Back to our story.

This 17 year old was disqualified for having too much of an intergluteal cleft exposed. There are approximately 7 billion humans on the planet right now, give or take 4 or 5. Every one of them, self included, is endowed with an intergluteal cleft. In my own case I had not seen my intergluteal cleft in years. I forgot it was there. Using mirrors I was able to find it. It was rather disappointing as clefts go.

I am reasonably certain that most 17 year old girls have a better looking cleft than I do. I mean, if I were an Olympic quality swimmer (presuming I could learn to swim) I would have to wear a suit that might show my cleft. Any judge that could keep down his lunch would undoubtedly disqualify me before I hit the pool.

Then again, you have to wonder about a judge (the ONLY judge) who fixates on the intergluteal cleft of a 16 or 17 year old female athlete. Why is the judge obsessed with the derrieres of the competitors? Why is one buttock touching another buttock (of the same person) of such concern as to demand a disqualification? I mean, golf has some crazy rules, but at least how your butt looks does not come into play. Thankfully.

There is a word for a judge who seems obsessed ( see Desmond Morris for details) with a young lady’s butt when he (or she) should be concerned with more important issues. Like rules. The term for such a judge can be found in the obvious place. Look deeply into the intergluteal cleft and you will discover the adequate definition for such a judge. No, look even deeper into the butt crack There is is!

ASSHOLE.

(Addendum: The ruling was overturned. The girl was awarded her victory.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/09/10/swimsuit-controversy-alaska-teen-disqualified-showing-too-much-skin/2278671001/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergluteal_cleft

Fake Bias

It’s the next thing. The next attempt to confuse, confound and discombobulate the American voter. It is what I call “Fake Bias”.

It goes like this.

All news is biased. Everyone is biased. Everything is biased. So, you cannot believe anything. Anywhere. Ever. It’s all just someone’s opinion. One source is just as good as another source.

Like the wife who is caught in “flagrante delicto ” with the neighbor in bed. Her husband walks  in. The evidence (so to speak)is staring him in the face. He accuses her of infidelity. The neighbor is right there beside her. “There is no one here,” she says. “Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?”

When I taught school I noticed that in the last 15 years or so a new attitude had developed about “experts”. During discussions some students often fell back on the attitude that all opinions are equal. All hold equal weight. “It’s just an opinion”.

According to the Oxford dictionary definition: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So, to some extent the kids were correct. Everyone’s opinion may be based on , well, just nothing at all.

But some opinions are based on more than thin air or preconceived notions. Some opinions are based on evidence, data and experience. The danger occurs when ALL opinions are lumped together as equally valid. They are not.

Over the last 30 years, intensifying recently, is the attitude that there is something negative about “expertise”. Experts are know-it-alls. They think they are smarter than other people. Obama thought he was the smartest guy in the room. (He usually was). Experts are smartypants and should be put in their place. Aha! The so-called experts were wrong.

This is a sea change from when I was growing up. Back in the 1950s and 1960s we were encouraged to go to school. To become educated. To become an expert in some field.That was the road to respect. The idea that you SHOULD be an educated person with a degree of expertise was encouraged. And respected.

When my students would take the position that “all opinions” are equally valid I would give them some examples to think about.

You feel a pain in your side. You ask your grandmother’s opinion. You ask the opinion of the bagboy at the grocery store. You pay for your gas and ask the gas station attendant what he thinks is wrong. You ask your family doctor  They all have opinions.Do you think all those opinions are equally valid? Do you follow the advice of grandma and eat some chicken soup or do you follow the advice of your doctor and get an X-ray?

Some people have opinions based on evidence and facts. Shall we take a survey of passengers on JetBlue and ask the best way to land the plane? Or should we defer to the pilot in this area? And while this pilot may be a genius in how to fly a plane, he may know nothing about growing corn. Expertise is limited. And specific.

Which brings me back to “Fake Bias”.

There is an attempt by the far right wing to destroy the very idea that news can be “unbiased”. That facts exist. It goes beyond claiming that certain networks have editorial policies that are biased. They do. MSNBC has been anti-Trump and Fox News has been pro-Trump. The bias is clear.

But that does not mean that both sides don’t use facts, even if selectively. And it does not change the fact that news can be factual. The idea that all news is biased is the argument of those who do not want honest, evidence based reporting. Because they cannot justify gun violence, for example, they call reporting of gun violence “biased”. They cannot justify putting children in cages, so they claim that other presidents put children in cages. Bias. Fake.

The end game of the attacks on “lugenpresse” (covered in another post linked below) is to deny the existence of objective reality. If everything is biased then nothing can be believed. A most dangerous attitude. Putin must be as happy a pig in doo-doo. He is getting exactly what he paid for. Fake bias.

https://josephurban.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/lugenpresse-testing-the-waters/