flintstones, act 2

OK, I admit it. I kinda had the hots for Betty Rubble. What can I say, I was at the age where, as Lenny Bruce used to say, guys will “have sex with mud if there’s nothing else handy.”

Betty Rubble

Anyway, speaking of testosterone and Stone Age tribal sensibilities, here’s a quote from a piece in a current publication. You’re all forgiven for guessing it might be the Onion, but it ain’t, it’s the National Review, that guiding light for US conservative thought;

What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. [.....] Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.

It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t hang out in college bars.

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. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year. If he hadn’t given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.

It is time for Mitt Romney to get in touch with his inner rich guy….

OK, Christ, that’s enough, but suffice it to say there are three pages of this drivel at the link if you really want to punish yourself.

As a lagniappe, here’s the very first comment in the thread that follows the article;

What a powerfully realistic piece of writing that hits the bullseye. Outstanding! Bring it on Mitt!

Oh all right, what the hell, just one more, and the spelling ain’t mine;

Note how our favorite liberals completely miss the point of the story.

There’s one group of people who will always hate the sucessful, and that is people who will never be sucessful.

We’ve got what, 9 more weeks of this? Something like that. Jesus. But it’s true what they say; Akin ain’t an outlier, he’s a representative feature.

19 Responses to flintstones, act 2

  1. Pornstar says:

    Well, if Obama has fallopian tubes, i guess i must have a Hampton. This is the guy i have the hots for.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/10/john-unger-cradles-arthritic-dog-schoep-in-lake-superior-picture_n_1763283.html

    (Oh, and Scott Brown too.)

  2. bluthner says:

    ‘Lagniappe’ is a lovely word. And ‘hampton’? that usage is new to me. So many things to learn here.

    And so many reasons to groan about that article. Distilled it seems to be saying: we should choose a president the way gold-digging bimbos choose which man gets them pregnant, according to how much shit he can afford to buy us.

    Even on that debased level Romney is the wrong guy to vote for. He doesn’t want to buy anybody any shit at all.

    And the daughters = fallopian tubes bit… now them’s fightin’ words.

    Actually there is good scientific observation that amongst social primates bias towards male or female offspring according to position on the social hierarchy does exist. But whoever wrote that piece of shit article got it categorically wrong. In nature it is the self-perceived status of the female that matters. High status female chimps have more males, low status female chimps have more females. This makes good sense because offspring inherit the status of the female. high status males always breed, but low status males often don’t breed. Whereas all females breed.

    And if a low-status female works her way up to high status (basically by beating the crap out of the other females – go Flintstones!-) she starts having more males. Even though she is still copulating with the same set of males. No one knows what the mechanism is, though there is much speculation, because if it could be replicated in human females at will it would be worth big big bucks.

    The study quoted in the shit article would suggest that what works for chimps works at least a little bit for humans, too, but it makes the categorical (and deeply Republican) mistake of assuming the selection (slight) in favor of males is something to do with the quality of Mitt’s spunk and not the environment of his wife’s fallopian tubes.

    And then there was an interesting study done in New Zealand -I wish I had the link but it’s only in my human memory- that looked for a link between the kinds of jobs men did and the sex of their offspring. And the surprising conclusion? The more macho (ie physically demanding and dangerous) the job – ie lumberjack & fireman for instance vs. accountant or hair stylist- the higher proportion of female offspring.

    As a father of three daughters and no sons I of course found that rather fascinating.

  3. gunnison says:

    As a father of three daughters and no sons I of course found that rather fascinating.

    Heh, that made me smile.
    You manly, manly man you.
    As father to one of each I guess I’ll lay claim to some kind of perfect cosmic balance.

    :cool:

  4. Pornstar says:

    Ninemile must be a total pansy.

  5. Elena says:

    perfect cosmic balance – I think that sums you up nicely, gunny.

  6. Tommydog says:

    I would have liked a daughter, but I’ve got some pretty swell nieces.

  7. Pornstar says:

    Hmm, can’t decide if it’s Bluth or Tommy who wins the humblebrag.

  8. bim_ballace says:

    Breeders!

    Just kidding. Kinda wish I had kids, actually, someone to carry on the bim_ballace name and legacy…

  9. Expat says:

    Kinda wish I had kids, actually, someone to carry on the bim_ballace name and legacy…

    Do you want us to draw you a picture? ….as they say.

  10. Pornstar says:

    Bim

    :)

    Here i think i’ve given such a gift to the planet by refusing to breed, then some fucker like Octomom or Rick Santorum comes along and negates my contribution.

  11. bim_ballace says:

    You guys are hilarious. Really. Glad to be here. Hope Gunny’s finger is on the mend.

    I was driving and having dental work all day, not to mention having my shriveled and childless heart broken. Then this blog: the best laugh in a while.

  12. Squirrel says:

    Worth a look: Richard Adams in the Guardian has spotted what Gawker and others appear to need to be told; looks as though Romney (surprise, surprise) has been busy using shell companies in tax havens.

    (Well, Bain Capital has. And, people like Romney being people like Romney, can you really imagine that he wouldn’t do for himself what his own company does?)

    The probability is that he’s stashed away a lot more, tax-free, than he’s ever going to admit to. Or anyone is ever going to be able to track down.

    (What shook me is that Bain seems to own Armitage Shanks, a well-known name here. And profits via shell companies. Being able to — literally — piss on Romney nearly every time I go to a public loo in Britain is at least some consolation for discovering yet another British company’s profits are basically being laundered around the world just for the benefit of a handful of rich shits in the US.)

    I particular like Adams’ characterisation of the guy who wrote he knew all about this stuff, but it ‘was of little interest’ as ‘a contender for some sort of “reverse Pulitzer” for non-investigative journalism’.

    Mind you, that’s a Pulitzer hundreds of US journalists would win easily, isn’t it?

  13. bluthner says:

    Red,

    More proof, as if we needed it, that the American economy is far more like the Italian economy that anyone seems to want to believe, in the sense that what gets taxed is just the part of the iceberg sticking up in plain sight to groundlings’ eyes. To find out about the rest you have to be able to swim underwater with the tax lawyers. Bain is just one tiny, tiny glimpse down into the depths.

    The amount of capital now drifting, sloshing, oozing around the world not taxed by any sovereign government is so large that in some ways the most powerful ‘nation’ on earth is now the nation of Transitania. Which really is a libertarian paradise. There are no rules except the one rule, which is that old twisted version of the golden rule.

  14. Squirrel says:

    Except that the Italians have the ‘Finanza’ police. Who are fierce.

  15. bluthner says:

    Red,

    Definitely more fierce now than they used to be. But I suspect they still tend to direct their ferocity at the smaller and softer targets. A bit like the VAT police here.

    Remember when the Italian President bragged to Thatcher that his country’s economy had overtaken hers? Which, apparently it had, but he was bragging about the real economy, not the taxed economy, which was only something on the order of a third of the real economy. Which everyone knew and no one did anything much about for years and years.

  16. Elena says:

    bim, I too am undergoing dental treatment. Sorry about the broken heart. That will take much longer to mend than gunny’s finger.

  17. Expat says:

    Remember when the Italian President bragged to Thatcher that his country’s economy had overtaken hers? Which, apparently it had, but he was bragging about the real economy, not the taxed economy….

    Which goes to prove….. Oh never mind.

    I worked in Genoa in the early 1980s and the Guardia di Finanza used to turn up regularly at the office and schmooze with the pretty girls. The boss encouraged it.

  18. bim_ballace says:

    Elena,

    Thanks. Hope the dental stuff is going well. Mine has been going on for some time and it’s fairly major – the direct result of my crazy youth. The heartbreak is manageable. Kind of weird, but one eventually becomes accustomed to people being people and sometimes not being there anymore.

  19. NatashaFatale says:

    Squirrel,

    In the dark old stupid days before twitter and all, the quaint buffoon F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” We’ve now left those old timers in our dust and all of those “hundreds of US journalists” you so blithely disparage regularly juggle half a dozen once-contradictory notions with ease before the ice melts in their first bloody mary of the day.

    In the present case, there are three such ideas lodged so deeply they’ll only emerge for the autopsy, if then. They are:

    One. All voters know that the true measure of human worth is wealth, and that the true measure of fitness for public office is success in business.

    Two. The things that very rich people do to hold onto the money they have while encouraging it to breed are far too unseemly to be discussed devant les enfants. Unless of course one is a pauper (which might indeed fit most journalists) and plans on remaining one (which absolutely does not).

    Three. If the mass of innocent voters (see “one”), secure in their faith in wealth and especially in the alchemy with which superior people somehow summon it, were forced to contemplate the hidden details of wealth’s care and nourishing (number “two”), their disillusionment might lead them directly into a state of catastrophic demoralization, overwhelming their far lesser faith in Journalism and all her minions.

    The desire to get a story is one thing, laudable in some ways but essentially the selfish project of every reporter’s personal interest; but protecting society from calamities such as “three” is a far, far higher calling. Thank goodness that publishers recognize heroic reticence when they see it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


four × = 12

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>