i went to the linked page because i was curious of the headline - aol being more of a liberal campus, apt to simply look the other way at mens' achievements while celebrating everyone else's.

i found that actually, and not surprisingly given the overcompensating nature of the world, men weren't the big winners.  the headline on aol's title page was just an effort to say, "nyah nyah, women ARE superior to men, after all".

before the stranglehold of overcompassionate political-correctness got ahold of our speech, ways and minds...were the first commentaries on winners' achievements an in-your-face "women didn't do this"?  no, because there was not an image of superiority that journalists, etc, felt they needed to justify regarding men.  no, because people KNEW what men had innately over women.   in the words of clay walker, "the silence speaks for itself".

nowadays, everything is a competition, a battle of the sexes - when the men win it's silenced because minorities' self-esteem may be threatened, and when the wintters are strong women whose mere presence on the team is made possible by the overcompensating notion of "equality," it's celebrated to no end in an effort to justify strong women as superior.

duct tape, anyone?

check out my site, www.jaggedlittledyl.com , unless you're there now