What makes the Landry/Tyra cover-up even more annoying is that what Landry did wasn't murder, or even illegal, under Texas law...until he stuffed the body into the trunk of his car.

The screenwriters may not have been aware of this; they were, perhaps, more accustomed to the more restrictive self-defense laws of California, New York, and the like. However, in Texas, the would-be rapist's last words about coming right back would constitute an imminent threat and in that context, a reasonable person would be in imminent fear of his life. The subsequent attack would be ruled self-defense, and after the dead man's history came out, Landry would not have to buy his own beers in that town for weeks, football victory or no.

However, the act of concealment argues a different state of mind, one more consistent with murder than with self-defense. Sadly, Landry's state of mind almost certainly was not murderous. He let himself get argued into doing something very stupid and made himself look legally guilty. Tyra may or may not have a future as a structural engineer, but she's definitely not going to be a lawyer.

All of this agonizing over the humanity of the Neandertal makes me wonder if there's not a market here for yet another minority group on whose behalf I can be mortally offended. Are there Neandertals among us still? Are they oppressed by The Man -- the only kind of Man that the Man allows us to call "man"? (Yes, that sentence sucked.)

I can do this, though.

"We're NeanderTALS! We walk TALL! We stand TALL in the face of Cro-Magnon oppression! We're in your face -- or we would be, if we could walk upright!"

I think a newsletter is in order. I'm thinking "The Stooped Man" is the title to go with. What think?

The usual man-hating jerks are piling onto the husband, accepting the LW's portrait uncritically as they would never do if the sexes were reversed.

Cary got it right and you jerks got it wrong. The LW is trying to undermine the husband's authority as a petty sort of revenge. That's stupid and wrong...and so are the man-haters.

...although s/he only saw how this would disadvantage Democrats -- not unusual for a Salon reader.

It is probably true that a Republican candidate can afford to cry while a Democratic candidate cannot. This is because a Republican has already achieved a popular perception of being tough and hard by virtue of party affiliation. It is probably also true that a Democrat can afford to be tough and hard in ways a Republican candidate cannot, because such a candidate has already been associated with the virtues of empathy and charity by virtue of party affiliation.

It's a question of playing against type in order to appeal to the middle. A cigar-chomping, tough-talking Republican will appeal to many of the party faithful, but confirms every stereotype of the party and would not appeal to moderate voters. Similarly, a weepy, whiny Democrat will repulse many moderates.

Not everything in life or politics is about gender.

So, women aren't responsible for anything they do, and everything is the fault of men. By that logic, men should get the credit for everything also. After all, women are merely the helpless puppets and pawns of men!

Your sexist womenfirster logic is probably subscribed to by plenty of Salon readers, and that's unfortunate, for they should think about the logical consequences of their beliefs. If we equate women with children in one context, it's going to leak over to other contexts.

most female DUI probation violators get sent to home detention.

What happens to the male DUI probation violators, and if it's different, why isn't that a story too?

Hillary's supporters have been making assertions about Obama's unelectability. They've made dark, vague references to the possibility that someone will find out something bad about him. Will you continue to express that concern if he is the Democratic nominee for President? Will you vote for someone else?

Hillary's tears are motivated by mourning for her lost opportunity, not by regret, not by shame, not even by the realization that people don't like her. If she could feel regret or shame, most of her career would not have happened the way it did, and she must be used to being an object of general dislike by now.

She's frustrated by her failure to achieve her goal, to which she feels inherently entitled by virtue of personal superiority as well as her sacrifice in remaining with Bill. She's afraid of losing her last window of opportunity.

That's all this is, and anything else is spin.

Oh, shut up about Valentine's Day, you losers. If you really felt single life was so great, you wouldn't begrudge a celebration of couplehood. Once a year, for chrissakes? That's your big complaint? You people have issues.

(With apologies to Peter Ustinov for the title.)

On the one hand, I have no love for vegan self-righteousness, and too many Salonistas have drunk deeply of that Kool-Aid. Your dietary preference is arbitrary, capricious, and nutritionally unsound; it is sublimated anorexia in a very thin disguise. Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.

On the other hand, the feminista whining about anorexia brings to mind once again the fact that feminists are the worst misogynists around. Do you really think that women are so weak and stupid that an ill-written, airheaded book will make them starve to death? Dogs aren't that dumb. If you think women are that idiotic, why do you support their right to vote? I give them more credit than that.

It's nice to see two stupid ideologies in combat with one another. The only misfortune is that only one of them is likely to lose.