Bill Gross (manager of the world's largest bond fund) gets in more digs at Bush

[swag]

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2007/IO+March+2007.htm

. . .

The solution, quite simply, is to elect less warlike leaders, which means those with DNA tilted to nurture, as opposed to nature, which means – yes, you male chauvinist piglets – more women and fewer male presidents. I mean other than commercially sponsored and male-motivated mud wrestling, how many women do you actually see fighting each other? Behind the lines and over the cell phone, yeah sure, the backbiting can be pretty awesome, but guns and knives? Even Farrah Fawcett on Charlie’s Angels just sort of pulled hair and scratched a lot of faces. Jesting aside, however, I’m dead serious and you should be too. If we were, dead serious, there would be a lot fewer bodies in the streets of Baghdad to name just the current hot spot. And for those of you who think that women leaders would be too soft, remember Maggie Thatcher defending the Falklands or Golda Meir leading Israel? They were tough, but neither one of them was responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents like Saddam Hussein and _________________ were. (You chastened neocons can fill in that blank.) More women leaders, fewer men is the solution if we are to avoid repeating those mistakes.1 And while that probably means a 2½ hour State of the Union speech and a little more nurture than our collective political nature is used to, women are the ones who really understand that war is good for absolutely nothing. Say it again.

. . .

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. As long as they aren't Golda Meir sorts, I hear she wasn't all that nurturing

[Jacobin]

2. I assume that he considers Condi not to be a female

The violence thingy is not solely controlled by gender, I would venture to say

[Sammy Pepys]

3. Eh.....

....just worry about managing my money :thumbsdown: