The woman who wrote this article is of course too stupid to understand that its very existence is proof of exactly the kind of anti-white male bias that she’s denying. No mainstream publication would ever in a million years publish an article titled “Can women finally stop… pic.twitter.com/ejFZkLWVW0
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2025
Matt's rant in its entirety:
The woman who wrote this article is of course too stupid to understand that its very existence is proof of exactly the kind of anti-white male bias that she’s denying. No mainstream publication would ever in a million years publish an article titled “Can women finally stop complaining?” Or “Can black people finally stop complaining?”
This is the kind of open contempt that can only be expressed towards one demographic group and no other. White men have simply had enough of this. We’re speaking up in our own defense, and that’s what’s so upsetting to her.
To be fair to the WSJ essay's author, Joanne Lipman, a free link: Can White Men Finally Stop Complaining?. Even her Wikipedia page describes her as "left-wing" (at least it does as I type this). The first few paragraphs should give you the snarky flavor:
The manosphere won. Bro podcasters top the charts. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg declares his company needs more “masculine energy.” Elon Musk shares a post saying only “high-status males” should run the country. The White House kills diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, and so do multiple companies, from Target to McDonald’s.
OK, men, so will you finally quit complaining?
In 2021, Joe Rogan famously said, “It will eventually get to straight white men are not allowed to talk…It will be, ‘You’re not allowed to go outside’…I’m not joking. It really will get there, it’s that crazy.” But Rogan’s complaint is actually an old one that has exploded as a rallying cry every decade or so for more than 50 years. White guys have blamed others for their job losses, educational failures, economic problems and drug addictions.
Somebody else is always at fault. The mighty white guy, it turns out, is quite the delicate flower.
More sneering, cherry-picking, and deftly ignoring the actual arguments "white men" are making at the link, of course.
Also of note:
-
The Anxious Generation, but with jokes.. I recently finished Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation, report linked below. To lighten the mood from Haidt's gloomy assessment, here's Dave Barry on one recently reported symptom: Telephobia.
If you, like me, belong to an older generation that is tired of being mocked by younger generations as clueless technology-impaired geezers — an insult that is especially hurtful because it's true — I have some news that might make you feel a little better: A college in England is offering a seminar designed to help Gen Z students overcome their fear of — prepare to be terrified — telephone calls.
Really. I found out about this from an article on the CNBC website headlined: "Gen Z battling with phone anxiety are taking telephobia courses to learn the lost art of a call."
That's right: Gen Zers have "telephobia," a fear of making or receiving phone calls, according to Liz Baxter, a careers advisor at Nottingham College. She's quoted as saying that Gen Zers "automatically default to texting, voice notes, and anything except actually using a telephone for its original intended purpose, and so people have lost that skill."
At this point you older generations are thinking: "Skill? Talking on the phone is a skill? That requires a seminar? What other 'skills' does Gen Z lack? Are they capable of bathing themselves? How about chewing? DO THEY NEED A SEMINAR TO WIPE THEIR BUTTS?"
Dave is merciful. Eventually.
-
With all due respect, let's point out that not very much respect is due. Kevin D. Williamson certainly isn't showing any when he observes the state of The Grand Ol’ Gimmick Party.
On the subject of cooking up some new budget gimmicks to hide the actual costs of current Republican fiscal incontinence, Sen. Ron Johnson said: “We need to avoid a massive, automatic tax increase,” as the tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire. A question for the senator: If it is important to avoid massive automatic tax increases, then why on Earth did you [long baroque string of expletives deleted] idiots write a massive automatic tax increase into the 2017 tax-cut bill? You remember that bill, Sen. Johnson: You voted for it. You lobbied to make it more expensive by changing pass-through rules in a way that benefited you personally and put a little extra change in the pockets of a couple of big donors, too, though I assume you’d have pushed for those changes in any case on the grounds that tax cuts are the Republicans’ version of Democrats’ spending giveaways.
KDW goes on to note: "When it comes to evading fiscal responsibility, Republicans are a pretty cheap date: They’ll pretty much take whatever is on offer."
At Cato, Romina Boccia is also contemptuous: With All Eyes on DOGE, Congress Plays Budget Games with America’s Fiscal Future.
While Americans fixate on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to rein in wasteful spending, Congress is quietly plotting to make the nation’s fiscal situation worse.
The House recently passed a budget resolution calling for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts plus $300 billion in new spending over the coming decade—all balanced out with $2 trillion in offsetting spending cuts and about $2.6 trillion in pixie dust from assuming their budget will have economic growth taking off like one of SpaceX’s rockets. (I believe it when I see it.)
Now the Senate is attempting to rewrite the budget resolution using an accounting gimmick to pretend extending the 2017 tax cuts won’t increase the deficit. Their tactic: switching to a “current policy baseline.” A major reason for this bait-and-switch maneuver is Medicaid, with legislators reluctant to hit the brakes on the federal funding gravy train that pads their own state budgets.
She's more polite about it than KDW, but equally on target.
-
And in our "Things That Won't Happen" Department… J.D. Tuccille has a suggestion: DOGE and Congress should look hard at reforming Social Security.
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is off to a decent start in making initial cuts in federal waste and overall cost and—importantly—normalizing the reality that reducing government expenditures is a good thing. But if the DOGE is to live up to its avowed mission of making the bloated federal government even slightly affordable, at some point it's going to have to take on the big dogs of government excess. That requires congressional cooperation, and it means targeting Social Security.
"The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report," the Social Security trustees revealed in the most recent annual report. "At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits."
J.D. has some good ideas. And he's fortunate that he's not a politician. Because if he were, his opponents in the next election will have already composed their ads showing him pushing grandma off a cliff in her wheelchair.
-
An anniversary is coming up. And Phil Magness gives us reasons to not celebrate: Locking Down American Liberty. He notes that pre-COVID, and even in COVID's early days, the scientific consensus was that lockdowns were ineffective. Even Fauci agreed with this. But:
In just six weeks’ time, nearly the entirety of the US public health profession, including Fauci, would jettison the previous century of scientific literature attesting to the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. Instead, they rushed to embrace the previously-deprecated approach of simulation modeling, and used it to place the majority of the world under mandatory quarantine. Five years later, we still have no clear answers for why this sudden, sharp reversal happened, let alone accountability for the public health officials who made the call to change course.
If any single event warrants credit for swaying the public health profession over to lockdowns, it is the publication of Report No. 9 by the epidemiology modeling team at Imperial College-London on March 16, 2020. The brainchild of Neil Ferguson, a computer scientist and physicist with no medical training, the Imperial College model forecasted catastrophic mortality figures in the coming months if the world’s leading economies did not go into immediate lockdown to contain Covid-19. The initial models projected 510,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million deaths in the United States by late July 2020 unless each country adopted a suite of NPI measures to shutter businesses and schools and restrict public gatherings. Ten days later, Ferguson’s team expanded their model to approximately 189 countries and other defined political boundaries. The expanded Imperial College report predicted similar levels of catastrophic death in almost every nation on earth, absent immediate measures to impose society-wide lockdowns.
I'm not sure what the lesson is here. Simply because they were disastrously wrong last time doesn't mean they'll be wrong the next time. But, for better or worse, the credibility of "experts" and "science" has taken a huge hit.
-
Fun Fact from Ann Althouse. She was alerted by a sentence in the Best Actress acceptance speech at the Oscars on Sunday; Anora's Mikey Madison: "I also, again, just want to recognize and honor the sex worker community." But she somehow dug out this piece of trivia:
Mikey Madison becomes the 10th woman to win an Oscar for playing a prostitute — 12th if you count Donna Reed in "From Here to Eternity" and Jo Van Fleet in "East of Eden." And Madison is the first to win an Oscar for playing a prostitute since the #MeToo movement shook Hollywood to its nonexistent core.
What's the significance of prostitutes being so hyper-represented in Oscar actress honors? What does it say about how these people think?
Has anyone studied if there is an equivalent job for Best Actor? Going back over the last 10 awards we have: Architect, Physicist, Teacher, Pushy Father, Demented Father, Psycho Villain, Gay Singer, Prime Minister, Janitor, and Fur Trapper.
I'm not seeing a trend there. And no prostitutes at all.
| Recently on the book blog: |
|
![[The Blogger and His Dog]](/ps/images/me_with_barney.jpg)
