Anyone still fantasizing that this is a conservative administration should note this particular appointment of a woman who wants to set up quotas for men and women in math and science classes.

At least they put the kibosh on it. For now.

Listen Rand this crowd may not be as conservative as we'd like. But they are a thousand more times more conservative than what the alternative was.

Not to mention the fact that my wife looks better in western garb than in a burka.

I can't be too upset, since I married someone who was an ecology major and helped covert her over to engineering. For the past 30 years, I've been pleased to sit back, gloat and rake in the bucks as she has been welcomed with open arms into every aspect of engineering work, including more rapid pay increases and promotions over her male peers due to her gender. When she applied to grad school in the 80s, she was told "if you have a sister or mother who'd like to apply we can get them in too!".

After the SCOTUS decision disabling affirmative action, that sort of thing has been reduced substantually. My present boss is a women (and a dang good engineer too)who doesn't get the privileged victim class treatment, and I think that's what's got the women's union panties in a bunch. Women in the sciences are no longer given social perks for no other reason than the size of their voting block.

So when the next Democrat administration comes in, I'm looking forward to my wife's appointment to the engineering faculty of some small college someplace so I can retire and perhaps work as her research assistant.

I can't find it now, but one of Ann Coulters columns suggested (in the way that only Ann can 'suggest') that the problem started by giving women the right to vote. She might be on to something?

"...one of Ann Coulters columns suggested (in the way that only Ann can 'suggest') that the problem started by giving women the right to vote."

I've said it too (I got it from Florence King, not Ann Coulter), but the real problem isn't so much who gets to vote but the fact that there are no standards at all -- pretty much if you can see lightning, hear thunder, and are warm to the touch you have a "right" to pick the people who will run all our lives. Sure, anything else is "discrimination" and we all know that's icky, but without it we had better learn to love the mediocre-to-crappy results coming out of the voter's booth. Somehow I don't think that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be done.

And there are some people who actually want to make voting mandatory. <shudder>