Kevin Williamson writes a supremely idiotic column at the National Review where he uses a little evolutionary biology, which he doesn’t understand, to turn Mitt Romney into a manly man and deride Obama as weak and effeminate. Why? Because Mitt is rich and Obama has daughters. Seriously.
You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didn’t give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything he’s ever touched. Son of the same, father of more. It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote.
Wow. So much stupid in one place.
59 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
No One
August 27, 2012 at 10:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why would anyone be surprised? In their heart (of darkest) of heart they are social Darwinists.
Michael Heath
August 27, 2012 at 10:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kevin Williamson:
Actually it’s President Obama, the numero uno alpha position in the world. Mr. Romney? He’s got about a 40% chance of reaching a level Mr. Obama’s already reached at a far younger age and with no sons.
Bronze Dog
August 27, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow. The sexism knows no bounds, there, and it seems it’s used to prop up Social Darwinism, too.
Abby Normal
August 27, 2012 at 10:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well it’s not like he can endorse Romney for his policies, character, or record.
Who Knows?
August 27, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Misogyny? In the United States? NO WAY!
Raging Bee
August 27, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can almost see this guy masturbating while he gushes about uber-man Romney and his abundant uber-sperm. It ain’t a pretty picture. This is where fascism comes from, folks: animal urges ruling childish minds, unchecked by knowledge, reason or common sense.
Chiroptera
August 27, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote.
And, therefore, the fact that he won’t should tell you what?
matty1
August 27, 2012 at 10:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What are the odds that for a different audience Kevin Williamson attacks ‘evolutionism’?
jamessweet
August 27, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Regarding Williamson’s invocation of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis… first, he’s got the entire thing way oversimplified. It does not predict that high-status males will have more sons. It predicts that, at least in some species, high-status parents may invest more in sons than in daughters, and vice-versa for low-status parents. This could be in the form of how many are born, but it also could be in how much investment they put into the offspring once they are already born. Williamson just plain clearly doesn’t understand what the hypothesis is all about.
Furthermore, whether it applies to humans at all is far from clear. Attempts to study it have provided mixed data. Certainly, it makes evolutionary sense. But just because something makes sense from an evolutionary perspective doesn’t mean it is so.
Of course, excepting all that, “high status” as defined for the purposes of the T-W hypothesis puts both Romney and Obama as very obviously high status. So… what’s his fucking point? Oh yeah, it must be “Kevin Williamson is a total douchebag”. In which case, I think this article accomplished its goals very well.
blf
August 27, 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Someplace else — I now have no recollection of where — someone pointed out this guy ought to learn about bonobos, the matriarchal sex-mad great apes:
To the extent there is such a thing as an “alpha” bonobo male, it’s because his mother and her friends are of high rank. He is just hanger-on.
(I’m always hesitant to write posts like this, because of the idiotic racial insult that compares black-skinned people to monkeys. I’m afraid someone will construe my comment in a direction that is extremely offensive and not-at-all what I intend.)
jamessweet
August 27, 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s also worth mentioning that in species where this evidence of the W-T hypothesis operating in nature, it’s often the condition/status of the female that is the determining factor, not the male. (We might hypothesize that the reason for this is because it would be easier for the female to control the gender of offspring, by e.g. detecting the gender of the fertilized embryo and selectively aborting it — whereas the male would somehow have to meticulously separate its millions of sperm into X and Y. And you thought separating egg yolks was messy and error prone!)
dingojack
August 27, 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey Kev – Any bets that Mittens youngest sons (and grandsons) are closeted gays? Studies show that the more male children a women has, the greater the chance of them being homosexuals.
OMG! Mittens is breeding our Pink Triangle overlords!!eleventy!
@@
Dingo
Chiroptera
August 27, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So Romney is going to kill all the infants in the US and mate with all the women?
slc1
August 27, 2012 at 10:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yessir, ole Romney is a manly man whose manly men sons are so manly men that they can’t produce enough sperm to impregnate their wives and thus have resort to in vitro fertilization procedures.
Dr X
August 27, 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doctors have told me that a woman can’t have daughters as a result of sex with a legitimate rich man. Her uterus has defenses against it.
grumpyoldfart
August 27, 2012 at 10:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
At least we know the American public will never be dumb enough to believe that story.
Jeremy Shaffer
August 27, 2012 at 10:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So Willamson would be okay with the practice of sex- selective abortion then? I mean, he gushes about how Mitt is “boss of everything he’s ever touched” and I don’t think you can’t get much bossier than that.
dingojack
August 27, 2012 at 10:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera – According to Ari Lipkin it’s them evuuul mooslims that going to that. Perhaps Mittens isn’t really a Mormon, but a secret Muslim!
I want to see Mitten’s church documentation (every scrap), plus proof that he even attended the tabernacle (thingy) even once in the last five years. I bet Mittens isn’t going to show his tax returns because they would reveal whose really being paying monthly stipends into his accounts all these years.
He claims his dad is his dad, but is he really? How would we know? Show us the long (or vault) Birth Certificate (not the fake ‘Certificate of Live Birth’), Mr Romney!
He claims he was Governor, but can any “Real ‘Mericans” testify to seeing hi actually in the Governor’s Mansion, governing (on oath to GAWD [the real one, not Mitten's so-called "god"], in front of the Grand Ol’ Jury I convened in my backyard)? I THINK NOT…
& etc. & etc.
Dingo
Bronze Dog
August 27, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m feeling lazy today, and it’s been a while since I’ve done my statistics. I’m wondering how much the odds spread out. If we’re talking Forbes 500 (which as far as I know is just the top 500 of the list, not the whole list itself), what are the odds that it’s just random chance that they had 60% male offspring?
Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if this statistic was completely fabricated or the result of data mining until he got what he wanted.
As for the summary of the T-W hypothesis provided by jamessweet: I definitely see humans falling into that mentality though not necessarily for evolutionary reasons. A lot of families devote more resources to raising male heirs to inherit the family business/dynasty while treating their daughters as useless chattel to trade for political and economic benefits. I suspect it’s less common today than in the past, but not by much.
raven
August 27, 2012 at 11:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What is this gibberish.
Bush had two daughters too. To make things worse they were half Mexican-(American).
Of the two males, Obama is clearly the most impressive.
Obama. Son of an 18 year old mother. Father disappeared shortly afterwards. Raised in modest circumstances. From a much put upon racial minority.
Goes to Harvard, gets elected senator. Wins presidential election and is one of the most powerful men in the world.
Romney. Son of a rich white old guy. Gets richer.
raven
August 27, 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From a common sense and evolutinary point of view, no sane, inteligent woman should vote for Romney.
He is the head candidate of a misogynistic party noted for hatred of women, female slavers, and forced birthers.
raven
August 27, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You will note that the subtext of Williamson’s gibberish is that women are not very bright animals just looking for a testosterone loaded alpha male to reproduce with.
It’s incredibly insulting.
I’ve never heard of Kevin Williamson but chances are high he is a typical Tea Party misogynistic male. Who thinks it was a huge mistake to let women vote and let them do anything but be pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen.
I’m sure he thinks it is a huge tragedy that he occasionally has to open his own beer bottles.
slc1
August 27, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Raven @ #20
I wasn’t aware that Laura Bush was of Hispanic descent. Mr. Raven might be referring to brother Jeb who is married to a Hispanic woman.
Area Man
August 27, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s also a curious fact that even if we assume that Mitt’s high status makes him slightly more likely to beget sons, the expected gender ratio of his children would still round to 1:1. Same for Obama. We can therefore say with confidence that Mitt’s high status has nothing to do with his having 4 sons instead of 2, and Obama’s status has nothing to do with his having 2 daughters. It’s just chance.
Well, so much for that. I guess Williamson will have to go wank to a game of dice or something.
Gvlgeologist, FCD
August 27, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1:
If I’m not mistaken, it’s Ms. Raven. However, raven will correct you if I’m right, and will correct me if I’m wrong.
But I believe you’re right about the Bushes.
dingojack
August 27, 2012 at 11:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s not believe, let’s know. [calls up the Fount of All Wisdom].
Nope, not Laura Bush, but Columba Bush.
See how easy that was?
:) Dingo
Gretchen
August 27, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Because….we hate ourselves?
Note to misogynists: Women can’t be counted on to agree with you on that whole “Women are lesser” thing. I know it’s hard to tell since part of the “lesser” includes being less intelligent, but trust me on this one. We don’t hate ourselves just because you hate us.
Also, I have never yet heard the term “alpha” used approvingly by someone who didn’t actually mean “asshole.” This column is no exception.
richardelguru
August 27, 2012 at 11:43 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“(explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice)”
Does that mean he likes rats, or possibly is one??
VeritasKnight
August 27, 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s about as relevant as suggesting you should vote for Mitt Romney so we can get a TV movie starring Bruce Campbell about Mitt’s rise from riches to…more riches.
Bronze Dog
August 27, 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I keep on finding things to say.
Probability and the target audience’s innumeracy: Let’s pretend for a moment that there is some real factor that leads socially dominant males to produce 60% males and 40% females instead of the usual 50-50 ratio. Let’s also say that Obama is in fact a member of this group and thus gets that reproductive quirk. He has two daughters. The odds of the first child being female is 0.4 (40%). The odds of the second child being female is 0.4 (40%). The odds of Obama producing two female children is 0.4*0.4 = 0.16. 16%. That’s a little shy of 1 in 6. The odds aren’t wonderful, but it’s hardly outside expectations. That’s the kind of thing that happens all the time when you have a large population to choose from.
Statistics are best for predicting populations and large groups, not individuals, and you can’t work backwards in this case, deriving which group one data point belongs to based on it matching a weak trend for one group. If we assume this crazy idea is correct, you can’t tell which group someone belongs to based on reproductive outcome, because there’s still a good chance he could be an outlier in one group instead of a typical member of the other. The fact that Obama got elected to the office of President of the United States would be inherently stronger evidence that he’s socially dominant than his reproductive outcome.
Analogy: Smoking increases the chances of getting lung cancer. I find a person with lung cancer. While there’d be a reasonable suspicion the person in question was a smoker, the fact that he has lung cancer is not strong evidence that he’s a smoker. There are other causes of lung cancer, including dumb luck. If you want to prove he’s a smoker, look for cigarettes or at least other common symptoms of smoking.
Captain Mike
August 27, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Richarddelguru: No, I think he’s pointing out that Mittens first name is actually the same as the last name of one of the scientists responsible for the hypothesis. As for what conclusions we’re even supposed to draw from this, colour me baffled.
sivivolk
August 27, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Argh, Trivers-Willard strikes again!
pacal
August 27, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So the National Review publishes something reactionary and stupid. No surprise.
After all we’re talking about a magazine that supported segregation in the 1950′s and later. Isn’t it amazing that William F. Buckley’s various bon-mots about race were largely ignored and had no influence on his status as a public intellectual.
I could also mention the National Review’s favourable bon-mots about the work of racist loony tune Rushton.
richardelguru
August 27, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Captain
Oh!
But he could still be a rat though?
d cwilson
August 27, 2012 at 12:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Cut through all the pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook and his argument boils down to:
Women love super-dominant alpha males because they love the idea of being dominated and/or solely define themselves by the status of their man.
Really, it’s just plain old sexism wrapped in a few athropology terms he discovered on Wikipedia.
Fortunately, polls are showing an overwhelming majority of women aren’t buying in to it.
Reginald Selkirk
August 27, 2012 at 12:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It appears Williamson’s column is an attempt at “humor,” so I don’t see a point in holding him responsible for statements which were not meant to be factual. I will simply say that conservatives have a difficult time being intentionally funny.
.
But Lawdy Mae, what a sense of timing to come out with this unapologetic chest-thumping heman woman-haters club machismo overload in the same week as Todd Akin’s statement on rape and pregnancy. Tin ear, to say the least.
Reginald Selkirk
August 27, 2012 at 12:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think this is more likely another display of Dunning-Kruger.
Raging Bee
August 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t it amazing that William F. Buckley’s various bon-mots about race were largely ignored and had no influence on his status as a public intellectual.
What’s equally amazing is that when Buckley died and his conservative fanboi groupies were eulogizing his wit and wisdom, they NEVER actually quoted any examples of said wit or wisdom. That’s because his wit and wisdom were completely overrated from day one. The only people directly quoting Buckley’s own words, were liberals like us reminding the public how consistently wrong he was. The guy was never anything but a fraud, trying to be both psudo-intellectual and anti-intellectual at the same time.
Michael Heath
August 27, 2012 at 2:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee writes:
He’s always seemed like an obvious poser to me; now George Will – there’s an intellect! ;)
Modusoperandi
August 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But what about their illegitimate children? Why do you think they both travel so much, hmmm?
Dr X “Doctors have told me that a woman can’t have daughters as a result of sex with a legitimate rich man. Her uterus has defenses against it.”
And it’s like a compass for rich sperm. True story.
raven “Of the two males, Obama is clearly the most impressive. Obama. Son of an 18 year old mother. Father disappeared shortly afterwards. Raised in modest circumstances. From a much put upon racial minority. Goes to Harvard, gets elected senator. Wins presidential election and is one of the most powerful men in the world.
Romney. Son of a rich white old guy. Gets richer.”
Yes, but you’ve concludified wrongly. Obama’s a class traitor, by reaching for the brass ring, while Romney earned his status, by inheriting it.
Gretchen “We don’t hate ourselves just because you hate us.”
Misogynists don’t hate you. They fear your uterus, and it’s power. The uterus, you see, is like turkey and lettuce and and a thin slice of tomato and rye bread, with a nice, spicy mustard all at the same time. Or maybe I’m just hungry.
d cwilson “Fortunately, polls are showing an overwhelming majority of women aren’t buying in to it.”
“It’s the UteroSignal!”
“Correct, chum. The Testicler must be up to another of his nefarious schemes. To the GynoCave!”
[Spinning ovaries]
Abby Normal
August 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s been a good long time since I’ve seen the ability to produce a male heir presented as a vital characteristic for a nation’s ruler. I realize Williamson likely relies on Barton for his history. So a certain amount of confusion is understandable. But still, someone really should let him know that the monarchists lost the revolution.
Chiroptera
August 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Reginald Selkirk, #36: It appears Williamson’s column is an attempt at “humor”….
How the hell are we supposed to know anymore?
escuerd
August 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bronze Dog @19:
It’d be really tiny with anything on the order of 500 kids. I don’t know how many kids are in the actual pool, but with the admittedly unrealistic assumption of an average of one kid per person the probability would be something like 4×10^-6.
If there were fewer than 500 kids, the probability would be higher, and if there were more, it’d be lower.
Your later objection based on the probability of having two daughters given P(female)=.4 is right on the mark, though. And given that the hypothesis this is all based on is pretty tenuous, the article just looks all the more ridiculous.
Yeah, best not to take that kind of claim for granted. But the article’s so silly, and I’m feeling so lethargic today, I don’t feel motivated to check up on it.
To be fair, these causes aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
escuerd
August 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera @42:
I second this.
If anything, it feels like an expression of sincere beliefs to be gobbled up by their fellow travelers with a sprinkling of unfunny frivolity to be trotted out in case someone actually calls them on it. I remember that being a big part of Ann Coulter’s schtick, at least.
“Oh, you liberals can’t take a joke/don’t get hyperbole/etc.”
Meanwhile, conservatives commenting on the same articles would often speak about how brilliant her ideas were.
Maybe if the article were funnier or less stupid I’d be inclined to be more charitable.
kermit.
August 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If women have instinctive responses to male traits – buried as they are under cultural and personal conditioning – it would be looking for good dads. Girls might be impressed by cars (wealth! cool!). But twenty-something women tend to look more at guys (or gals) who pay the bills, and who aren’t jerks: good dad material, even if they aren’t looking for a mate yet.
Were I looking at this like a scientifically illiterate airhead, I would see that Willard Scissorshands was born rich and managed to stay rich, while Mr. Obama started as an outsider, and soon an orphan, then worked his way up to millionaire and top alpha dog. Which is more impressive?
Also, without high tech, none of Romney’s boys would have given him grandchildren.
Also, too, I see that IVF tips the male-female ratio to more males.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1316079/IVF-skews-ratio-boys-girls.html
And who killed the Al Qaeda alpha?
Just sayin’.
Dr X
August 27, 2012 at 7:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Like Romney’s attempt at humor when he ‘joked’ that there is no doubt about his birth certificate. You know, the joke that’s funny only to people who actually doubt the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.
This Obama isn’t a real man crap was circulating in the previous election, quite seriously among conservatives. It seemed that all those conservative white boys didn’t like the idea that Obama was as much of a “man” as they are–an attack that has all sorts of very creepy historical reverberations with the attitudes promoted by white bigots who called black men boys. So here, now, Williamson thinks it’s funny to joke about Obama’s lack of manhood. All the white ladies, and even all the black ladies should want Romney, rather than the black boy, er, um, man.
But it’s humor. These people are permeated by cultural manure that they don’t even recognize as they enthusiastically spread it all over the rest of us.
bobmunck
August 27, 2012 at 8:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hasn’t Williamson made a pretty good case for the theory that the Romney clan secretly aborts most of their female fetuses?
iangould
August 28, 2012 at 1:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So why waste time with elections?
Just pick the ten multimillionaires with the most sons and then let them Rochambeau each other for the Presidency.
iangould
August 28, 2012 at 1:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So how many of the NRI readers nodding in approval as they read this nonsense would totally reject an argument based on evolutionary theory in any other context?
iangould
August 28, 2012 at 2:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abby Normal: It’s been a good long time since I’ve seen the ability to produce a male heir presented as a vital characteristic for a nation’s ruler.
Yes but since neither the consummation of Romney’s marriage (including proof of his bride’s virginity on their wedding night) nor the actual delivery of any of his putative offspring were properly attested to by multiple witnesses, tradition says they don;t count.
Pen
August 28, 2012 at 2:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Any other demographic and they’d be accused of selective abortion.
dingojack
August 28, 2012 at 2:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abby (#41) – “But still, someone really should let him know that the monarchists lost the revolution”.
Looking at America and England today, are you sure about that? :/
Concerning the probabilities:
Let us us assume that each Fortune 500 type has about 4 children each (they’re rich, they can afford ‘em) then the sample size is about n = 2000.
But most of the Fortune 500 are men, say 90% (glass ceiling and all that), and since we are interested in the offspring of men we can exclude those that have Fortune 500 mothers. n = 1800.
The null hypothesis is that 51% are males (n♂ = 918) and 49% are female (n♀ = 882) at birth.
The observed rate is that 40% are female (n♀ = 720) and 60% are male (n♂ = 1080) at adulthood.
Therefore with 1 degree of freedom φ² ≈ 58.34333733, the probability of this occuring by chance is ≈2.2e-14.
Proof positive that Fortune 500 males disproportionately have aborted or murdered their daughters before they reached adulthood!
(Or that right-wing pundits pull figures from their rectums)
Dingo
iangould
August 28, 2012 at 3:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a long time since I studied probability andstats but I think people are calculating the wrong figure.
You’re calculating the chances of them producing EXACTLY 60% male offspring but with a large range of possible outcomes the chances of any single specific outcome (including exactly 50% boys and 50% girls) is quite low.
What you should be doing is calculating the chances of them producing AT LEAST 60% male offspring which I’m sure is still quite low but is the sum of the chances of them producing 60%; males; 61% males and so on. Alternately think of it as the remainder after you subtract the cumulative possibility of them producing fewer than 60% males.
matty1
August 28, 2012 at 5:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abby (#41) A male heir isn’t even a requirement for monarchy anyway, otherwise Bertie Windsor with his two daughters would never have got in.
blf
August 28, 2012 at 5:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Saudi Arabia?
democommie
August 28, 2012 at 8:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m glad I read wiki, first.
“Libertarian reviewer David Gordon criticizes the book, writing “Williamson lacks the ability to report facts accurately and his work contains preposterous errors.”[5]”
Not that I doubt Ed’s word; it’s just good to know that wiki which is at least as credible a source as WND, The WSJ or National Review can be honest about his journalistic bona fides.
“It’s been a good long time since I’ve seen the ability to produce a male heir presented as a vital characteristic for a nation’s ruler.”
“If anything, it feels like an expression of sincere beliefs to be gobbled up by their fellow travelers with a sprinkling of unfunny frivolity to be trotted out in case someone actually calls them on it.”
Since it IS very difficult to discern the “funny” in anything to do with the GOP–it’s hard to tell whether they are stupidly trying to be funny or funnily trying to be stu–, no that won’t work.
Anyway, I propose a democommieneologizmo, “Fupid” or, perhaps, “Stunny” be used when referring to GOP “humor”.
democommie
August 28, 2012 at 9:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rats:
I forgot to deal with this one:
“It’s been a good long time since I’ve seen the ability to produce a male heir presented as a vital characteristic for a nation’s ruler.”
So, I know this might sound a little cockamamie, but bear with me.
Mittmoroni’s wife’s name is “Ann”, right? You know who else was married to someone named Ann and had issues with not havin’ teh boybabeez? That’s right, Henry VIII. Look, I’m not accusing anyone of anything like having multiple wives or committing wifeicide or anything like that. I’m just asking questions here. If Glen Bek could take some time off from trying to muddy the waters about whether he and other, unnamed co-conspirators raped, killed and ate all of those kids at that christian boarding school back in the 90′s–well, he could at least TRY to do some real reporting.
caseloweraz
August 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey, you know who else has just daughters? Dick Cheney. And GW Bush.
So there.
(Thanks, raven. I would have forgotten about Bush.)
Modusoperandi
August 28, 2012 at 11:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
caseloweraz, and look how that turned out. Romney is the genuine article. This time. Until the next one.