Shari says:
You know as much as I agree with what you say, and as much as I realize that science reveals what it does, I think that something is still not realized, here. That’s all I can say.

ME:

Shari, SysOp and I have had many a long discussion, as sane people will in an insane world, about men and women. Some of it was mutual reassurance, the kind two sane people residing in an asylum would have to assure each other that these other people really are the nuts.

Some of our talk was about men and women. We agreed that men and women are DIFFERENT. They are different, not in the Women’s Lb way, as competitors for the male role, but dffere3nt in a SYMBIOTIC way.

SysOps said it was God, I tend toward evolution, but whatever it was had a REASON for making us different, and it wasn’t so that Bella Abzug and Betty Friedan could make a living.

As usual, while some theorize abut this, I USE it. Both of my first two books in my own name are dedicated to my ex-wife, who is still my trusted friend. She made the Populist Forum operate and was essential to all the rest.

When I took over the Oversight Unit on Capitol Hill I chose a brilliant experienced woman as my Associate Director. I was amused that one of my staffers who was a conservative anti-racist was shocked and upset that he had to work under a WOMAN.

Now I have SysOp kicking me ar …, I mean, making deferential suggestions to me.

What you express is a feminine opinion. Women are more GENERICALLY conservative than men. I have tried to explain this many times to professional politicos who wonder why women now vote more liberal than men. They give me the usual dazed cow look and then go back to their complicated discussions.

An old bull like me charges into the new age. You look at it quizically. For me to say yours is a normal feminine approach would have the Women’s’ Libber lynch mob out in force. You and SysOp have no trouble being called women.

We are the only sane ones in this funny farm.