When a woman does something like this, it's supposed to be hilarious.

Like: good for her. But this is flagrant destruction of property and — as we say in tort law   the intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's not funny at all. It should not be encouraged, and it's not even pro-woman to celebrate it, because what is required to find this funny is a foundational belief that women are really too weak to actually hurt anyone seriously. Only men are dangerous. This insults men and women.

And I realize that I'm encouraging the encouragement by linking to that article. Sorry.

By the way, the other woman in this story could have been maliciously screwing up the relationship and deliberately provoking the tortfeasing woman's rage. The man, whom we're expected to believe the enraged woman had loved, was never given a chance to defend himself. His guilt is presumed. Depriving the male of self-defense is an element in classic female revenge scenarios where a man is attacked as he sleeps.

In this current story, the man's body isn't attacked at all, as the pusillanimous woman takes aim at his property. We're expected to laugh as we imagine him frantically searching for his valuable personal items — including his laptop — before somebody else takes them.

"[T]he earliest farmers expended way more calories in growing food than they did in hunting and gathering it."

So, why do it?

These societies had seen the value of owning stuff – they were already recognizing "private property rights," [said says Samuel Bowles, the director of the Behavioral Sciences Program at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico]. That's a big transition from nomadic cultures, which by and large don't recognize individual property. All resources, even in modern day hunter-gatherers, are shared with everyone in the community....

[And t]he early farmers had one advantage over their nomadic cousins: Raising kids is much less work when one isn't constantly on the move. And so, they could and did have more children.

"The concept of 'redistribution' falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership"

Tweeted Matt Yglesias last fall, quoted by Andy at Ace of Spades, who notes that "Journalist and political blogger Matthew Yglesias bought a three-bedroom, three-bath condo on Q Street in Logan Circle for $1.2 million" and quips "So, party at Matty's this weekend? I mean, I'm sure he won't mind if we crash the joint, what with that myth of owning private property and all."

"If ever there was a case to balance private property rights versus the public good..."

"... to save something historically important to the cultural legacy of the city, this was it."

5 hours of political television not live-blogged last night.

The Madison Common Council debated and voted on a plan to light the Southwest Bike Path... which is actually called the Southwest Commuter Path, which should tip you off about which side won. The path will be lit. The faction that conceives of a grand plan for upping the percentage of commuters who travel by bike beat the property owners whose land abuts the path that was once a rail line.

The property owners did a fine job of marshaling arguments that would appeal to those who don't live right there. Maybe environmentalists will take their side if they call it "Owlpath" and stress nocturnal wildlife. Experts can explain how pools of light along a dark path make it harder to see and but easier to be seen. There you are lit up as if on stage to be sized up by the robber or rapist hiding in a dark spot.

Over the hours, many citizens spoke, and one phrase jumped out: "commuter corridor." You may think it's your backyard, but it's a commuter corridor. It's not a place to be but a place to move through, and there are so many more people moving through than staying in place. Of course, many more people drive to work, but even those who do are entranced by the fantasy of all those other people biking. Biking year round, despite the cold. It's during the cold times when the lights are most needed. Who knows why winter stops commuters from biking? Maybe it's the darkness.

And there should be gender equity. Why so many more men than women biking in the dark? If there were lights, people would feel safe, and feeling safe is so especially important to women. And making women feel safe is the central function of government, is it not? Making women feel safe coincided with spending tax money to buy a new amenity that will be noticed and will speak continually — to all who pass through the corridor — saying: Government has improved life for everyone. Experts and owls notwithstanding — those property owners are going to lose.