You don't have to go to Africa to find a prosperity gap between river, oceanfront, and even plains areas versus rugged, mountainous regions. That holds true more or less everywhere. I don't think it's much of an argument for development of rugged areas; quite the contrary, really. It implies, instead, that development efforts should be expended where they'll do the most good, rather than wasted on regions that won't be very prosperous no matter how much development is done.

And I don't want speech or thought police coming around and telling me what I can or cannot say, can or cannot read, and can or cannot think. But that's exactly what feminists do all the time, including at Broadsheet today.

You're back, and with more absurdities. Where and when did feminists call for the revocation of the first amendment? Or do you fail to comprehend the difference between these extremely different assertions: "people shouldn't" and "the government should ban"?

Switzerland is land-locked, and in rugged terrain.

Is this the exception that proves the rule (I never knew what that meant)?

You could apply that, I suspect. Switzerland is known for products which are small and travel relatively easily (watches, banking). They do some agriculture in the foothills, but their tourism industry is quite large; their mountain valleys are gorgeous. (I recommend a trip to Lauterbrunnen in the spring.) In parallel, there are ruggedly beautiful places in Africa which could become very prosperous through tourism if they were safe - a sort of chicken-egg problem if you accept the premise that their impoverishment contributes to the violence.

That being said, Switzerland has a nicely arable central plateau nestled into its fortress-like exterior, without which it would never have been able to sustain a significant population in medieval times. Add to that a major crossroad between northern and southern Europe, and you have the geographical keys to Switzerlands' historical financial success.

The usual problem with elitism is the lack of elites among the elitists. For example, who should head FEMA? A qualified professional? Perhaps the best in the field of disaster management? Is that elitism? Or how about a horse race bookie, or whatever Brownie was, who knows little or nothing about the subject at hand but happens to be connected to the right people? Is that elitism?

Let me say, instead, Cronyism and Meritism. I hope the words' meanings are obvious. Both are types of elitism, the former destructive, the latter not only constructive but outright necessary for most endeavors. Plato was clearly calling for a sort of meritism, and most who site Plato in defense of the indefensible are talking about some type of cronyism.

And it turned out to be a fact that Paris Hilton did 23 days more actual jail time than is currently the norm for DUIs driving on a suspended license.

That's a deceptive "fact" which does not actually mean much of anything. "The norm" is simply not a judicial standard meant to be upheld; the judge is allowed a certain amount of leeway in sentencing.

In virtually all respects, women's traits and men's traits overlap. The average may differ (or may not) and the extremes may differ (or may not) depending on the trait, but individuals almost always overlap. For example, some men are physically stronger than any woman, and men on average are stronger than women on average, but an individual woman may very well be stronger than an individual man.

"Stratification" by its very definition assumes that one gender starts where the other ends. And, in virtually every case, that's just not true. Some women cook well, some women don't, some men cook well, some men don't. You can quibble about the averages and extremes, but the overlap is obviously huge.

Once you accept the lie which is stratification, you effectively deny men the right to do things that women are better at and vice-versa, no matter what their individual inclinations or talents may be.

So cheney would have been right if he let the farmers suffer?

You're willing to gloss over the blatant lying about scientific fact? Without accurate determinations of consequences, deciding what's the right thing to do is already impossible. It would be one thing to say "forget the fish, we're sending water to the farmers", it's another thing entirely to say "oh, the fish'll be fine" when it's already been established that they will not.

The age of consent in practically every American jurisdiction is 16, and in a few jurisdictions even younger.

I'm vaguely curious what you mean by "practically every American jurisdiction"; to make that statement even marginally true you must be literally referring to "America" as the continent rather than as the U.S., as is so commonly done.

I keep thinking about moving from San Diego (AKA "Man Diego") to New York just for that reason. Obviously I just can't compete in this environment.

That's what testifying under oath means - having to tell the truth or else get convicted of lying a la Scooter. And this administration doesn't dare tell the truth...

Can we bus some of those New York women to San Diego?

According to Crusty the Clown, you live so very close to the happiest place on earth: Tijuana.

Meh. Overrated.

The dirty little secret is that the women there are far more mature and less self centered so it bodes for a much more stable and lasting family.

...Right up until they can stay in the country without staying married to you. Then, they dump you for an attractive guy. A relative of my co-worker has done this like three times.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it doesn't stink. Scooter Libby was convicted for obstructing justice - justice for the Bush administration, which now uses its power to effectively pardon him. (Parole and a fine of a small fraction of his defense fund? Please.) And so it ends, no justice served for their blatant criminal actions in pursuit of a political goal: the quagmire occupation of a harmless foe.