Pillow Talk, explained by evolution.
Women seemed to prefer let's-just-lay-here-for-awhile activities like kissing and chatting, while men seemed eager to leap out of bed and start, um, drinking.
Drinking is fun, but I also like sandwiches. For some reason, I'm thinking of a peanut butter and fluffernutter sandwich, it sounds like the best post-coital sandwich to me.
Study author Susan Hughes explained that, from an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Women want to put on "Pink Moon" and spoon for hours for the emotional purpose of bonding and the physical purpose of being horizontal and retaining sperm (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew). Men don't need to lay there to ensure that our genetic material doesn't dislodge from their innards, so they do things that will aid future mating success in some way -- either by having sex again (powering up with a panini and a Lagunitas), or asking for something that they want while we're all flustered and sexually roughed up.
I'm glad there's science out there to explain this phenomenon.
Moar psy-ince! Increased Solar Activity May... Cool the Earth? This to me just confirms that nobody in the scientific community knows what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to global warming.
Another reason people don't trust environmental science. When science gets politicized, it loses it's integrity. You get people who start studies with predetermined conclusions, and then manipulate or read data in ways that support their foregone conclusions. That directly opposes the scientific method, but what do I know, I'm not a scientist.
Like with climate science, studies on domestic abuse and rape with foregone conclusions lack integrity. Domestic abuse is a terrible thing, and lying about or distorting facts to support your thesis ultimately hurts the true victims of domestic violence.
The greatest obituary picture evah? H/T to Eric at Grim's Hall.
Kurt Albert in lederhosen, holding a stein of beer while dangling from a precipice
MTV, BET, and CMT are doing a casting call for the audience of a Barack Obama townhall. What's wrong, B-rock? Can't fill the stands on your own, or do you want the audience hand-selected so none of them give you trouble? Note that they're asking for a photo and a description of your political views. Keep it in mind when the only Republican is a hideous fat mess who is looking for the One's birth certificate.
72,000 Stimulus Payments Paid to Dead People. But don't worry, they'll do a great job running healthcare. Also, the WSJ on it:
The SSA says that the stimulus package didn’t include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds that were mistakenly sent out, so it can’t try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.
Good Game.
In the past, I've mentioned the "unexpected" bad economic news trend. To quickly sum it up, every time there's bad economic news in the press, it is always "unexpected." Glenn Reynolds thinks they should perhaps adjust their expectations. I agree, always over-estimate how bad things are, so when things aren't as bad as you estimated, people thank you for saving the day! Anyway, I don't post 'em every time I read about it, but today's "unexpected" economic news gets special mention. "Why?" you ask. Because after Hotair noted it today, Reuters went back and stealthily edited their article to take out the "U" work. As the Chinese would say, "that's hirarious." With today's interwebz technologies, we can see them react to us. True, they haven't nutted up enough to acknowledge their editing, but babysteps people, babysteps. When I go back and edit a published post, I always note the time, place, and correction. Fortunately for me, I don't proofread and so very rarely will I go back and change anything, and I would never go back and change something I wrote to make me look like less of an asshole. Face it, Reuters, your caught, and the cover-up is worse than the crime (although neither were that bad in this case)!
I'm not a tax professional, but here's some food for thought. Study: Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts Will Hurt Poor the Most.
Tunku Varadarajan on Forbes' selection of Michelle Obama as the world's most powerful woman. He makes some very interesting points.
Actually, to say that Michelle Obama is the most powerful woman in the world is not merely absurd; it is retrograde, and misogynist, a tediously sexist take from the power-behind-the-throne school of political theory (which holds that women can only wield power through husbands and sons)...
And whatever it is that Michelle O has—that which Forbes chooses to call “power”—is not intrinsic to her. It comes, entirely, from her marital state. (I am gagging here, somewhat, at having to state the blessedly obvious.) I would have thought that the most “powerful” woman would be the one who had won office herself in the biggest economy available to her: And surely she must be Angela Merkel, the German chancellor: She’s been elected twice by a notoriously fussy electorate, runs a thriving economy—a major world power—and her husband’s an anonymous chemist who has nothing to do with any of it.
The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident who is currently incarcerated. Of course, China has gone about their routine in-country censorship and stage management, as well as condemned Norway and threatened their relationship. Glenn's commentary cracked me up: "I guess tomorrow he’ll send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Well, we can use ‘em!"
"Face it, Reuters, you're caught..."
Quickly, edit it in secret!
Posted by: HP | 10/09/2010 at 12:48 PM
Little did you realize, HP, that I edit all my posts afterwards to confirm to the vast jooish conspiracy's official line... if I don't, they beat me :(.
Posted by: The Viking | 10/12/2010 at 01:42 PM