Not because of any particularly high level of morality or principle on his part...but because of this: could any woman or man stand to be outon a date with him for more than an hour?

First he chastise the cabdriver for not driving something environmentally friendly - like a hydrogen-powered taxi...or rickshaw. Then he would rail about the evil of corporate influence on the choice of movies at the local multiplex.

At the film, Ralph would annoy the rest of the movie audience by railing on and on about how there is no real difference between Christian Bale and Russell Crowe...and how audiences should embrace a "qualified" third-party lead actor - like, say, Adam Sandler.

On to dinner, shall we? Where Ralph excoriates the corporate influences which poison the restaurant industry - and steadfastly bellows that there is NO REAL difference between Hispanic food/chefs and Chinese food/chefs.

Finally, just before the dessert tray comes Ralph indignantly stands up, walks away from your table and announces he is going to become a third-party chef - and that he will enter a cooking competition against the chefs of Hispanic and Chinese restaurants...(even though he knows he'll only be siphoning support off the Chinese cuisine entrants).

*******

Win a date with Nader in '08!!! Anyone interested? =)

But many men in different parts of the world - for better or for worse - anthropomorphize animals, cars, sailboats and so on with female attributes and virtues.

Sexist? Sure - though not necessarily malicious in intent. Usually it's along the lines of "My Mustang GT has some sexy curves....and her V-8 purrs like a kitten in heat." [Think 'Eleanor' in the movie "Gone in 60 Seconds".]

...or is at least some of this American vilification of China just thinly veiled racist schaudenfraude?

Don't get me wrong - the Chinese government is by no means saintly...considering, as Andrew mentions, their Darfur ties, shameless Net censorship, heavy-handedness with Taiwan and Tibet, etc.

But I seem to detect an implicit glee in the (white/Western) American media's scathing portrayal of these cat-eatin', mega-pollutin', secessionist-crushin' commie Chinks. {Of course, CNN/Salon/etc. commentators would never actually utter these specific words...though Fox News might.)

Is it jealousy/fear of the dreaded "Yellow Peril" - a rising nation of prosperous, industrious Asians, analogous to Japan in the 80's??

***************

Furthermore, I wonder what these American commenters would think of this headline if, say, Chicago/USA was hosting the 2008 Olympics:

"The Chicago Olympics debacle has begun: tens of thousands dead in a neverending war, out-of-control pollution and consumption, abuses of civil liberties and sanction of torture, and an economy in ruins - the USA is ready for its close-up!"

Pot, meet kettle.

There's a true story from a couple years ago in which PETA decried the use of a donkey as a method of carrying out a terrorist bombing attack by Palestinians on Israelis. Animals should not be made to suffer in wars, they said.

And they're right, of course...but when asked whether they had any comment about the humans killed and/or suffering from the attack, PETA basically said it had no opinion about that.

I see an analogy in the PETA criticism and Lynn's column on how the Iraq war affects women - and is a quote-unquote "women's rights issue".

Does the Iraq war affect women negatively? Of course. Should we all be concerned? Of course.

But as Parson Jim mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the dead/injured in this war have been men.

****************

Donkeys/animals AND humans have suffered through the strife of war and terrorism. If PETA had been able to say that - to show concern for human well-being in addition to animal welfare - they'd probably be a lot more successful in their efforts.

Women AND males are affected by the Iraq War. If a feminist like Lynn could bring herself to show concern for the dead/injured members of the other gender, her points might resonante a whole lot more.

Nobody has mentioned/seemed to notice this angle: the author's photo accompanies the article - and she appears to be at least reasonably physically attractive.

Hence, the selling point of her book would be that a pretty girl has a hard time going about a one-night stand...

But what if her photo wasn't included? OR, what if her photo did appear - and she was quite lacking in the beauty department?

How would it influence you - or other potential readers out there? Would her tales have any worth if the answer she sought turned out to be a white elephant in the room? (I.e. - You fail at picking up men for one-nighters because you are not pretty.)

IMO, it would've be a more interesting excerpt WITHOUT her photo being present...

Umm, I don't think the vitriol directed towards the author is because she is pretty and white.

It seems to be more because she is (or puts herself across as)a vapid navel-gazer...and frankly, over the years Salon has done more to champion such people as "writers" {Debra Dickerson, anyone?} than people who actually have any acuity or depth of writing talent.

Alice Sebold is also pretty (to me, at any rate) and white - but if Salon chose to publish an excerpt from one of her, I'm guessing the response would be quite different.

The metrosexual fad jumped the shark when South Park brilliantly satired it years ago, in a classic episode culminating with - you guessed it - a Metrosexual Rights Parade.

[The Queer Eye for the Straight Guy gang were also revealed to be evil Crab People. If u don't watch SP, don't bother asking...=]

Sure, metrosexuals abound in High School Musical (Zac Efron) and on American Idol - but in the real world, straight guys have once again discovered that it's okay to, you know, look straight. Wear a t-shirt and jeans. Spend less than 5 mins on their hair. Scratch their nuts. And so on.