TapDance Around the Truth

The Battle of the Sexes, round 156,423,212,090...

So Sen. Clinton got caught looking less than perfect the other day. Matt Drudge posted this pic on his website, Rush Limbaugh asked if America's ready for an aging woman president, and the debate was on. Ann Althouse, law professor and fine blogress, waded in by asking if standards were impossibly high standards apply to men as well.

The consensus seems to be that standards are too high in general. During the debate, I finally lost my patience and posted this:

It's been frustrating watching everybody danc[e] around the root cause of the disparity: fecundity.

Your typical man is able to fulfill his role, impregnation followed by providing resource(s) deep into his sixties. A woman, by contrast, is a dicey proposition by her late thirties, and completely washed up by fifty or so. (Both cases deliberately ignore recent medical advances because our biases evolve slower than our technology).

To riff off a notorious thread; both are depreciating assets, but women depreciate twice as fast.

Nobody responded, and the thread petered out on an Obama / qualifications tangent.
Sigh.

Where in the Virtual World...

I spent the evening having fun on this thread at LittleGreenFootballs. A convivial, 1,000+ post chat session that focused on customizable avatars, Charles Johnson's newest toy. "WriterMom" and "Noam Sayin'" coined "Enviroyenta", while I added "Enviroyentas" and "Enviroyentalist". Later, "MandyManners" was the center of a long retail theft thread. Further on, "realwest" schooled me on NY Leasing law.

I wanted to highlight three posts....

#346 PSGInfinity 12/08/07 7:22:37 pm reply quote report

re: #317 Honorary Yooper

New hatchlings, eh?

I wonder how many of them are of the banned? I found one last night, hiding out on the Lounge.

I'd like to see a special section added to LGF. Login-only, showing the post(s) that got the miscreant banned, optionally including Charles comment(s).

Also, "taxfreekiller" and "StudSupreme" added some pungency to the thread. Reproducing my posts:

#264 PSGInfinity 12/08/07 7:02:17 pm reply quote report

re: #74 taxfreekiller

Dear Useless unleaders of America.

Keep it simple, use the dam AWACS AND THE DAM PATRIOT SYSTEMS ON THE DAM OFFENSE AND BOMB THE SHIT OF THE MAD MULLAHS,,,,

Yours everclear,
taxfreekiller

Bombing them is still an option. However, it DOES turn it into an overtly religious war, which then obliges us to hunt down and kill 1.1+ Billion (that's with a "B") Muslims. That a LOT of bullets. Bombs. Rifle Barrels. MRE's. And worldwide opprobrium. THAT would be the event that, right or wrong, turns the world against us. Unless the Muslims truly back us into a corner, and we're nowhere close to that point.

#460 PSGInfinity 12/08/07 7:45:42 pm reply quote report

re: #320 StudSupreme

re: #264 PSGInfinity

THe world already hates/envies us. They will FEAR us if we expand the war against Islam.

Maybe. And they might decide to try to work together to get rid of us. Would they succeed? Hell if I know, that's waaay too far down the road. My point was that whacking 20% of humanity is an unprecedentedly violent act. The last time some politically - correct leader tried that, we got into a little fracas.

Now, WE were the good guys last time. And we're the good guys THIS TIME. But picking a fight with 1/5 of humanity is so drastic that the ultimate results are completely unpredictable.

Remember, a Reformed Islam would likely be an acceptable outcome.