Sydney Sweeney Is Setting Women’s Sports Back, But Not How You Think

The American Spectator | USA News and Politics 

. . . "About 1000 words in, with lots more to say,  I realized I was on track to write a book rather than a column and I needed to stop. Find a more succinct take on that controversy here. So I settled on this latest Sydney Sweeney kerfuffle." 

Regarding the Sydney Sweeney ad, the left used to like coyly selective nudity - American Thinker

"It turns out I have my pick of stupid controversies to weigh in on this week. I actually started this column off with the idea that I’d dive into the fracas surrounding University of Texas quarterback Arch Manning, who found himself beset by the harpies of sports media over the fact that he confessed to finding humor in an off-color and absurd AI meme on Tuesday. About 1000 words in, with lots more to say, I realized I was on track to write a book rather than a column and I needed to stop. Find a more succinct take on that controversy here.

So I settled on this latest Sydney Sweeney kerfuffle." . . .

. . . "The people throwing a fit over Sydney Sweeney’s buxom, er, personality gracing a sports betting ad and aggrandizing themselves as the gatekeepers for what women in sports can and should be might want to take a beat and think things through.

"Because you’re going to want to avoid irritating the target market for Novig’s ad. Alienate those people, and you will find the small audience for your athletic endeavors has shrunk even more.

"Especially when female athletes posing nude, or nearly so, as a way to promote their own personal brands is something that has gone on since before Sydney Sweeney was around. At whom do you think those covers of ESPN the Magazine or Sports Illustrated were aimed, after all?

"Becoming a joyless scold at Sydney Sweeney’s intrusion into this space has the effect of telling those men — a big chunk of the audience you have, after all — who they can look at and who they can’t. What makes you so sure they’ll choose you instead of her?

"I don’t have numbers to back this, but it’s my sense that there are more men interested in women’s sports because they get a thrill out of watching hot, athletic women play golf or tennis or basketball than there are women watching, or men who appreciate the quality of play.

"And if I’m right about this, then the real pushback against Sydney Sweeney is that she’s horning in on their action. I don’t know that this gives them the high ground.

"I especially don’t know where female athletes get the idea they somehow are the gatekeepers when it comes to sex appeal and men’s sports people bet on.

"Continue pushing this, and don’t be surprised when lots of people roll their eyes and say “I’m done.” And support for women’s athletics begins to wane, because who wants to further empower a class of whiny, screeching, and scoldy feminists who insist on equality right up to the point where the price has to be paid for it?. (RELATED: Feminism, the Nose-Ring Theory, and Our Potential Extinction)   More.

Scott McKay is a contributing editor at The American Spectator  and publisher of the Hayride, which offers news and commentary on Louisiana and national politics, and RVIVR.com, a national political news aggregation and opinion site.

Regarding the Sydney Sweeney ad, the left used to like coyly selective nudity

"The left’s newest source of outrage is a cheeky (literally) ad that Sydney Sweeney did for Novig, a sports betting app. How dare Sweeney sexualize women in sports? But of course, the feminists’ problem isn’t sexualizing women, whether in sports or out; it’s that Sydney Sweeney refuses to play the woke game by politicizing everything. Instead, she uses her sexuality for entertainment like a wholesome 1950s sex goddess, not like an in-your-face woke lesbian athlete.  It all began with Sweeney’s “good genes” ad for American Eagle, which was hugely successful, but that Democrats insisted was an ad for white supremacy:" . .  .  More.

The Two-State Solution Is Dead — President Trump won’t tolerate this. To him it is obvious that recognizing Palestine is a reward for terror.

"Britain and Europe push Palestinian statehood despite October 7, Palestinian rejectionism, and the grave security risks it would pose to Israel." (By means of the western left.)

The American Spectator | USA News and Politics

"Boiling blood indeed: the authors write that “October 7 was neither uniquely Hamas nor distinctively Islamist. It was Palestinian through and through.'”

Bob Englehart

"Did the Palestinians groan for a state? Did they plead to be lifted from the dung heap and raised from the dust? No. What they did was celebrate every watershed atrocity from 9/11 to Oct 7.

"Enigmas do come wrapped in mysteries. But really. First the United Kingdom, along with countries of that provoking sort, recognized pie in the sky “Palestine” as a country. Now a member of Britain’s government has punished Israel for aborting the newly born Palestine.

"So what’s it to be — real or unreal?

"Recognizing a country with no borders, no elected government, no economy, and no way of standing on its own feet was manic to begin with. Now the European Union’s foreign minister compounds the enigma by calling on member countries to join Britain’s trade ban on Jewish communities in what they call the  “West Bank” and Israel, keeping the name from Roman rule, calls “Judea and Samaria.”

"And that is where things stand with the creaky “Two-State Solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With plans to construct new settlements in area E1 (to complicate name calling) Israel has given the West a new excuse to boycott the Jews and Palestinians new impetus for the brutal violence that always defined their identity.

"But this grim yet ironic picture conceals the real kicker. Ever since Israel’s own 9\11 — the Oct 7 atrocity — Israelis can’t stomach the Two State Solution. And thus join the Palestinian Arabs who never could stomach the concept.

"It is entirely fair to say that Israel tried and retried the peace process route to a Palestinian state which the world believes will solve the conflict. No go. Essentially it remains in 2026 what it was in 1947: the Jews said Yes and the Arabs said No.

"It is undeniable that Arab blood boils at the very thought of two states living side by side in harmony.

"No one would know that better than Hussein Agha and Robert Malley. The book Tomorrow is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine tells about their decades of effort, singly and together, promoting Palestinian statehood." . . . More.

Does Cory Booker practice his rabid face in front of a mirror?

Cory Booker eyes

92-Year-Old Grassley Has Enough of Young Whippersnapper Cory Booker: 'Are You Ready to Shut Up?'   

Booker had gone full-on Hamlet monologue mode, frothing at the mouth and emoting and performing with all his heart as he personally attacked the FBI director with innuendo and insinuation. You could tell he thought he was killing it in the above nearly four and a half minute clip, but Grassley was obviously embarrassed that this guy is a sitting United States senator, because he’d probably be cut from his local community theater program for overacting.

Some Booker parody:   CNN Reinforcing Camera Lenses In Case Cory Booker Stares Directly At Them During Debate   

Booker suffers from a rare disability eye doctors call: “Insane Eye Balls” or IEB. “It’s when the brain is so corrupted the eye balls actually try to escape directly through the sockets,” Dr. Simons explained. “In extreme cases, like with Booker, the eye balls become so desperate they can easily break glass.”

Cory Booker's crazy eyes!

Give Us a Monopoly or Everyone Dies!

Ann Coulter  

"At least those demands were direct: Don’t let anyone compete with us. But all regulation imposes costs that are going to be harder for startups to bear."

Broc Smith

"Does Artificial Intelligence pose a threat to humanity? Absolutely! But only assuming humanity is defined as “the billionaire owners of A.I. companies intent on crushing their competition.” [Ed: I don’t think that’s the definition.]

"You don’t need to be a super smart A.I. machine to know that large corporations love government regulation. Compliance is a fixed cost for them, but often an insuperable barrier to new entrants. Regulations allow the incumbents to maintain their market dominance by blocking up-and-coming rivals.

"University of Chicago Economist George Stigler won a Nobel Prize for pointing this out fifty years ago. It wasn’t just a theory. Stigler’s argument has been demonstrated over and over again. In fact, it seems so obvious, I’m not sure he even deserved a prize. But people probably think the same thing about gravity, our heliocentric world, or selling books over the Internet. Today, those seem obvious, too.

"As Stigler said, regulation is fantastic for oligopolists, and also great for the politicians they buy. It’s only a disaster for consumers. That is precisely why these unwarranted gifts to greedy companies are always preceded by florid scaremongering.

"From 1938 to 1978, existing airlines warned that allowing others to compete with them would cause planes to fall out of the sky. The industry would be under so much pressure to offer low prices, they would sacrifice safety to cost-cutting. In fact, since deregulation, not only is flying a lot cheaper, but fatal plane crashes have declined exponentially.

Licensed taxi drivers predicted that ride-share companies like Uber would be a “sexual haven for predators.” Getting into an Uber would be like “swimming in a sea full of sharks—one day you are going to get bitten.” They lost, which is why today it’s possible to ride in a car that doesn’t reek of curry and body odor and to end up with a driver capable of finding Grand Central Station.

"At least those demands were direct: Don’t let anyone compete with us. But all regulation imposes costs that are going to be harder for startups to bear.

"Philip Morris lobbied heavily for The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which prohibited cigarette companies from offering branded merchandise, free samples, or putting up billboards—i.e., all the marketing tools that might have allowed newcomers to break into the business.

"This had absolutely nothing to do with Philip Morris wanting to lock up its undisputed 50% share of the tobacco market. I don’t even know why the law became known as the “Marlboro Monopoly Act.” It was for the children!" . . .

Be Very Suspicious of the ‘Put the Brakes on AI’ Crowd | The American Spectator   

. . . "And once AI is “regulated,” it’ll be the legacy incumbent AI players who dominate the market in collusion with the government. Just like the automotive industry, and practically every other former center of capitalist innovation.

"President Trump is railing against these people. He’s correct to. This is such a nakedly corrupt play that it stings the nostrils. Let’s just hope the public is wise enough to see it after everything we’ve been through that it falls flat."