Patrons of fitness centers always have a list of peeves about other patrons, mostly concerning camping on machines, improper dress, perspiration, etc. Here’s mine: space hogs.

Equipment rooms at fitness centers are usually overpacked with equipment. For whatever reason, there is never enough floor space to accomodate all the equipment the proprietors think their customers want. So they try to be as efficient as they can, but usually cram in about 10% more machines than the room can handle. But what about tte customers that make matters worse?

I’m talking about those who use the remaining space to do things that could be done elsewhere. At one fitness center I patronized, the only open space was a narrow aisle in front of the dumbell racks. But there was always a guy who used this space to do his stretching and warmups, including skip rope. I always wondered, while trying to navigate the narrow spaces in the room, or get access to the dumbells I needed, why he needed that particular space to do what could be comfortably (for everyone) performed practically anywhere else. The last straw occurred when he decided that the aisle would be perfect for him do do his lunging exercises, back and forth, effectively putting the entire length of the dumbell rack out of reach for all but the quickest.

But I left that center over a year ago for that and other reasons, and am now working out at the local YMCA. And I only visit the equipment room when I want to use the equipment in the room. But is this attitude unusual? It is for some, especially for this guy who seems to have the same schedule as mine (early a.m.), but whom I have never seen use any of the equipment except for an exercise ball, but only rarely. He normally unrolls a mat onto the floor and does mat exercises. For almost an hour. And usually blocking an area that others need access to.

Forgive me for thinking that a cramped equipment room is not required to perform mat exercises. Does this guy tell his wife, “I’m off to the Y” when all he does there is what he could have done in the comfort of his own home?

To make matters worse, our Y is undergoing a remodeling, and the equipment had to be rearranged to make room for a temporary emergency exit route. So it’s even more cramped than it was before. Did this condition awaken a common-sense, considerate sentiment in our mat athlete? Not a chance. He adjusted like everyone else. I showed up one morning looking for a crunch bench that I liked to start out with, but it wasn’t there. It seems our mat man needed the space it occupied, and had picked it up and leaned it against the wall to make space for his floor mat. There he was, on the floor, doing Pilates criss-cross exercises.

I moved on to another station that was still accessible, and completed my early morning workout. But as I was leaving, I noticed the users of the tennis courts who were just arriving. What if they had been denied the use of the courts because others were using it for step aerobics? Wouldn’t they have been able to argue that the courts had a specific purpose, and the aerobics could have been done elsewhere?  

The mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, has openly admitted that he will forsake his elected responsibilities and rational thought processes to allow his emotions to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. This is an astonishing admission, but one which the American public is getting used to hearing, as it becomes increasingly more acceptable, even justifiable, when our leaders make decisions affecting our lives for purely emotional reasons, even (or especially) when these reasons may conflict with legal, constitutional, civil, and rational bases.

As related by the story here, Mayor Sanders revealed himself to be weak and vulnerable, as if these are qualities we seek in our political leaders (though no doubt some editorials will flip these qualities and portray him as “bold” and “courageous”) by permitting a personal situation to force him to abandon a principle he once championed to help him get elected. In the steady course of feminization (or emasculation if you prefer) of our culture, succumbing to our “hearts” when we have lost confidence in our “brains” is apparently becoming a good thing.

Now, same-sex marriage (misleadingly called “gay” marriage by the dishonest and misinformed) is a major issue in California, as in other states. (“Major” not because of specific actions on the part of defenders of traditional marriage, but because of activist assault on it in our courtrooms.) But it’s not an issue in the sense one would expect: that is, debated on the floors of our legislative chambers or in political campaigns or even (as in the California custom) via referenda. No. This would be pluralism, democracy, consensus, and yes, constitutional; but such traditions are archaic and patrimonial in our society. You see, our populace is too bigoted, homophobic, and conflicted to make such decisions in a democratic manner. True to classic projection psychoanalysis, these activists believe that our hearts have taken over our minds (Mayor Sanders is a perfect example), so we will likely make equally irrational decisions to deny justice to our protected minorities. So it seems perfectly logical to surrender our democratic rights and turn over such difficult decisions to unelected judges, who are much more enlightened and rational than we are. Since everyone is assumed to be hysterical, then we should turn all decisions over to judges, who can be counted on to at least have their hearts in the right place.   

What was Mayor Sanders’ decision? To endorse an amicus brief on behalf of the city council in favor of a state supreme court ruling to fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as defined by civil statute established by the people of California and their elected representatives.

The reason? Well, in the activists’ parlance, a civil institution is defined not by what it establishes, but by what it “bans” or “denies.” For example, by giving all citizens over the age of 18 the right to vote, then the voting laws “ban” minors and non-citizens from voting. Likewise, our marriage laws, by defining liberally but explicitly what constitutes a civil union, “ban” recognition of  unions outside that definition. Thus a person can’t marry a sibling, a non-person, his parent, his child, a minor, a person already married, or a person of the same sex. The rights of any of these denied entities aren’t encroached by this definition, but Mayor Sanders seems unaware of this, as he directs his objection only to the ”same sex” exclusion, citing his desire for “equality” and “justice” for persons of certain “sexual orientation” as reasons.

When he first ran for election, Mayor Sanders was in agreement with the electorate that since nowhere in the statutes is “sexual orientation” a condition for obtaining a marriage license, it was not the business of the courts to make sexual preferences or practices of a class of people an instrument to radically alter a civil institution established for a specific and narrow purpose. When he abandoned this reasoned position, he publically wept. Understandable.

By cutting the funds rate today, the Fed has forsaken the its mission of monetary stability in the cause of political expediency. Because once the Fed decides that a weakened dollar is an acceptable price to pay to avoid a recession, then the prospect for renewed inflation elevates from likely to a certain. The reaction of the markets to the decision is evidence that prices for everything are propelled on an upward trend, adding to the momentum that was already there.

The Fed believes it has the power to avert a recession. If the recession is caused by an overly tight money supply, then Fed policy can indeed be changed to correct a situation it caused. But our current situation was in part the result of overly loose monetary policy, carried out from 2003-2005. So in this case, the remedy amounts to no more than hair of the dog.

The roller-coaster ride we’ve been on during the waning days have summer have mostly been attributed to the “global liquidity crisis” associated with the “housing bubble” and associated defaults in sub-prime and other high-risk real estate loans.

But that’s like saying you have a fever because you have the flu. It describes the symptoms, not the cause. So far, most of the experts in academia and financial houses are getting all the press coverage, and their solutions mostly address the symptoms. Even one of my favorite economists, Larry Kudlow, is urging the Fed to cut the funds rate, fearing the sub-prime mess will lead to a recession.

Now, I’m not saying a recession is not on the horizon. To be sure, large-scale mortgage defaults will likely have a ripple effect on the economy, and affect the growth rate in a major way.

But it isn’t the Fed’s job to prop up the economy. Its job is to maintain monetary stability, and let the economy work out its own problems. If this means a recession, so be it: better a small recession now than a deeper one later, which would result if the Fed inserted another Phillips Curve solution, as they have tried so often in the past with mostly harmful results.

Which brings us to the market. Investors now fully expect the funds rate to fall, else the price of gold and oil (an other commodities) wouldn’t have shot upward. The Fed may not be worried as much about inflation, but by now everyone else is expecting it, big time. (Investors make decisions based on future expectations, while the Fed prefers to focus on current and past data.)

The trouble with inflation is, once it’s factored in to business and investment decisions, it becomes foregone, and will happen no matter what policymakers do. That’s why it’s so hard to control, and is reduced only after a lot of pain.

Investors can deal with inflation, but what they can’t deal with is uncertainty. Hence the market swings. Will they or won’t they? But by watching this, and reading about mortgage defaults, unemployment rates, economic growth, and other indicators, the Fed takes its eye off the ball, which are the inflation indicators. When they found this too difficult, they focused on the “core” inflation rate, ignoring the more volatile indicators, such as oil and gold. This permits them to be even more backward looking, by disregarding the latest news. Is this like driving by watching the rear view mirror?

So now we have arrived at a situation where the dollar is weak (but not weak enough against the yuan for some), commodities are at record highs, and real estate values had inflated to unsustainable levels. Yet the Fed refuses to admit it hand a hand in all of this, in spite of the fact that it kept interest rates at ridiculously low levels even during two years of above-average growth! To make matters worse, it attributed the growth to its own policies rather than give it where it was due (the tax cuts), while lamenting the deficits (and by implication the tax cuts) which had no discernible effect on interest rates or inflation, unlike their own prolonged easy money policies.

These premptive arguments are being made with unprecedented candor on the part of the current chariman of the FOMC, Ben Bernanke, as well as by Alan Greenspan, in his legacy-saving tell-all book. (Can you imagine Paul Volker writing such a book?) 

But to get back to the point, what’s really bothering the markets? Of course, Fed policy is one factor, and so is the liquidity crisis. But my guess is that these issues aren’t nearly as disturbing as a much bigger issue which become closer and more likely with each passing day, and that’s the prospect of a Democratic administration, which will make certain more regulation, more taxes, more protectionism, and other anti-growth policies currently working their way through Congress. 

A couple of decades ago, the terms “sex” and “gender” had distinct meanings. “Sex” described the reproductive capabilities of biological entities, while “gender” described the analogous characteristics of non-biological human inventions.

This simplicity was useful, simple, and clear. We all knew that an animal’s “sex” was male or female, and that the “gender” of an electrical (or plumbing) connection described how it mates with its counterpart. The distinction was apt, as human inventions can mate, but not reproduce biologically. No confusion here.

But contemporary writers have some problems with the English language’s use of gender in its common nouns, especially its preference for gender-neutral nouns, and the use of the masculine gender when the gender of the subject is neutral. (If you’re familiar with other languages, you know what I mean — if not, bear with me.) English has plenty of nouns which are gender-specific (ewe, hen, bachelor, mare, stud) but the majority are gender-neutral (doctor, teacher, engineer, boss, rock). Unfortunately, the majority of English gender-neutral nouns “sound” masculine (chairman, congressman, freshman, fireman, human, mankind, man). To complicate matters even further, many feminine-gender nouns have been shunned (stewardess, waitress, actress) and replaced with clumsy substitutes.

Get the picture? If not, the militant feminists do. And their influence has led to our current earnest desire to be correct to accept the false notion that English is sexist* by its very nature and must be changed to accommodate them. But this earnestness requires us to ignore the history and teachings of the language.

So when “chairman” became “chairperson,” most of us accepted it. There are countless other examples that the reader can conjure up (e.g., when did “actress” become “female actor”?).

But by acceptance, we allowed the butchery of our language to continue apace. The latest casualty is the word “sex.”

Maybe it’s a reaction to the pervasiveness of the porn industry, but we are allowing “sex” to be replaced by “gender” in more common phrases every day. I first noticed it when “sexual equality” became “gender equality” a few years ago. The term amused me, because while “sexual equality” is a perfectly legitimate term in certain applications, “gender equality” is an absurdity in a lexicographical sense. Then “transsexual” became “transgender.” But did it stop there? No way.

I was listening to a TV journalist recently when I heard her use the term “gender harassment” and I was stunned. Did she invent this term, or was she following the network’s style manual? In any case, when did the (already recent) term “sexual harassment” fall out of favor, and why?

You don’t have to be clairvoyant to see where this is going. Our schoolkids will doubtlessly learn new terms such as “gender preference,” “same-gender unions,” “homogender rights,” “gender education,” “gender relations,” and so on.

I’m waiting for the day when the *genderists replace the Sex field on birth certificates with Biological Birth Gender. And I’m afraid it’s not far away.

Remember the SAT analogy questions? They tested your vocabulary by asking you to identify word pairs that have the same relationship as the stem words.

Try this one:

DOG : WOLF ::
a. cricket : grasshopper
b. human : chimpanzee
c. apple : peach
d. Aborigine : Polynesian
e. monkey : ape

The correct answer is d., but if you chose b., you would be in the same company as more than one in the community of respected “dog experts” who are critical of Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer.

Who are these critics? Animal behaviorists such as Dr. Nicholas Dodman and Dr. Ian Dunbar, to name two. But they lose me completely when they demonstrate their ignorance of evolution, genetic ancestry, homology, anthropology, and even the history of dogs.

In fact, dogs and wolves are of the same genus (canis), else they would not be so readily hybridized. You can’t say the same for humans (homo) and chimps (pan), notwithstanding the observable aspects of certain fans of the Oakland Raiders. The thousands of years of human domestication and breeding of canines have brought on significant changes in dogs, but have not in any way resulted in the creation (or “evolution”) of a new species.

(Don’t recite to me the “97% similarity” between human and chimpanzee DNA as reported in popular publications. This is a crude statistical estimation based on a preliminary analysis, and not as a result of the sequencing of chimp DNA, which has never been completed.)

Are these PhDs as scientifically illiterate as they appear to be, or are they simply participating in the indoctrination of a scientifically illiterate public? Either way, it isn’t comforting.