“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

How Blondes Took Over the World, Except in Afghanistan of Course


How women evolved blond hair to win cavemen's hearts


 
As the role of women has evolved, men's expectations of women have changed," Professor Ayton said. "They are looking for more intense, equal partnerships and appearance has a large role to play. It is even possible that certain hair colours can indicate wealth and experience.” (except in Afghanistan of course.)


For those who are still considering the debate on whether men prefer blondes, a study may have provided proof in favour of the flaxen-haired, if only because they appeal to the "caveman" within. Academic researchers have discovered that women in northern Europe evolved with light hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to stand out from the crowd and lure men away from the far more common brunette. Blond hair originated through genetic necessity at a time when there was a shortage of both food and males, leading to a high ratio of women competing for smaller numbers of potential partners, according to the study published this week in the academic journal, Evolution and Human Behaviour. Until these shortages about 10,000 to 11,000 years ago, humans had uniformly dark hair and eyes. The physical ardour required with hunting bison, reindeer and mammoths in some regions meant many male hunters died and left women with a shrinking pool of breeders. Flaxen-haired women arose out of a rare mutation but increased in numbers because their chances of breeding turned out to be better. Peter Frost, a Canadian anthropologist and author of the study, published under the aegis of St Andrews University in Fife, said hair colour became popular as a result of the "pressures of sexual selection on early European women". Human hair and eye colour is unusually diverse in northern and eastern Europe ... [and their] origin over a short span of evolutionary time indicate some kind of selection. Sexual selection is particularly indicated because it is known to favour colour traits," he said. He added that the environment skewed the sex ratio in favour of men "to leave more women than men unmated at any one time". Such an imbalance, he said, would have increased the pressures of sexual selection on early European women, one possible outcome being an unusual complex of colour traits: hair and eye colour diversity and, possibly, extreme skin de-pigmentation. There are at least seven different shades of blond hair in Europe and the question of how such a large variation developed in a relatively short period of time in a geographical region has always remained a mystery. Dr Frost concluded that the lighter shades of blond hair evolved as a response to food shortages in areas where women could not collect food for themselves and were utterly reliant on the male hunters, as they were in some parts of northern Europe. But while blondes may have had more fun at the dawn of time, researchers at City University in London last year found that modern men responded more positively to pictures of brunettes and redheaded women than to their blonde counterparts. Experts said that as relations between men and women have evolved, men may have become more attracted by brains, represented in their psyche by brunettes, than the more physical charms of blond hair. Peter Ayton, professor of psychology at City University, who led the research, said dark hair could now be more a potent symbol than blond. "As the role of women has evolved, men's expectations of women have changed," Professor Ayton said. "They are looking for more intense, equal partnerships and appearance has a large role to play. It is even possible that certain hair colours can indicate wealth and experience.”



99 comments:

  1. You have to stay up late to discover these connections. It is a pity that I am not on speaking terms with Bobbo. Perhaps a poem would help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. .

      While I have never questioned the principle of natural selection, nor
      thought about it all that much, IMO, this is bullshit. If there is one man and five women on a dessert island do you think any one of the women would have to worry about not getting laid?

      Just saying.

      Heck, if Linearthinker was the guy, even the snakes on the island wouldn't be safe.




      "Study on Genital Color and Evolution"




      Some 'scientists' have too much time on their hands.

      Unfortunately, we pay for half this stuff.

      .

      Delete
  2. I'm going to go ahead and send my passport to the IRS. And the keys to the Chevy. And, my Nike jumpabouts. They have my money; now, they might want to take a nice little drive up to Canada, or down to Baja, or sumpin.

    If I go silent, ala The Rat, it won't be because I croaked; it'll be because the IRS came back and took my computer, and cell phone. Yesterday was brutal. I don't think I can support myself, and the IRS, on my present income. Anyone want to hire a slightly (okay, mostly) used-up, ex-insurance man?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Anyone want to hire a slightly (okay, mostly) used-up, ex-insurance man?


      For what?

      :)


      I guess we could send you to 'northern Europe'. Sounds like they will take anyone that can still perform.


      .

      Delete
  3. We should have a national day of sending the IRS a slightly worn pair of underpants.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They would have to be "slightly-worn." Who could afford "new" ones?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry for being soooo old fashion but isn’t job one for a man to protect woman and children in particular female children? I pity these people when we leave them at the mercy of their men who prefer to dance with each other.

    (Reuters) - About 150 Afghan schoolgirls were poisoned on Tuesday after drinking contaminated water at a high school in the country's north, officials said, blaming it on conservative radicals opposed to female education.

    Since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.

    But periodic attacks still occur against girls, teachers and their school buildings, usually in the more conservative south and east of the country, from where the Taliban insurgency draws most support.

    "We are 100 percent sure that the water they drunk inside their classes was poisoned. This is either the work of those who are against girls' education or irresponsible armed individuals," said Jan Mohammad Nabizada, a spokesman for education department in northern Takhar province.

    Some of the 150 girls, who suffered from headaches and vomiting, were in critical condition, while others were able to go home after treatment in hospital, the officials said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. April 16th (April 18th this year) really should be some sort of Holiday, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That culture, and its traditions, goes back thousands of years. We're not going to change it. Not in ten years - not in a hundred years. But we can make ourselves poor, and batshit crazy, trying.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rufus sends his underpants in in a wad to the IRS at the start of 'every month.'

    That's what he told us but you brought it up.

    I don't see the point of the article given the number black heads is Asia and Africa.

    Unrelated, I was reading the Solutreans may have been the early Basques.

    That explains there presence in Boise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we send to the IRS quarterly, most years, that is for times a year, not the 12 times Rufus sends.

      Rufus has sent so many he might be underpantless, like me.

      Rufus sends his underpants in in a wad to the IRS at the start of 'every month.'

      That's what he told us but you brought it up.

      I don't see the point of the article given the number black heads is Asia and Africa.

      Unrelated, I was reading the Solutreans may have been the early Basques.

      That explains there presence in Boise.

      Delete
    2. rufus is not wrong.

      You can be a monthly depositor.

      Delete
  9. There is some good news.

    Cost savings associated with the cuts will reduce manufacturing costs to 70 cents to 72 cents a watt this year, the company said. Next year, First Solar expects to produce its cadmium-telluride panels for 60 cents to 64 cents a watt.

    That's approx. 90% less than just a few years ago.

    First Solar

    ReplyDelete
  10. All going on here of course is the publishing of some self congratulatory articles by Deuce.
    See: Critical Race Theory
    White man can't do no other.
    Ferrakhan says if we don't 'change our ways' we are 'finished.'

    ReplyDelete
  11. .

    Why worry about taxes and such when there are so many more important issues?


    It is impossible to have a rational, let alone civil, discussion in American politics today. Forget the debt ceiling debate and the furor over Obamacare. Consider Kansas House Bill 2513, Rep. Ed Trimmer’s proposal to make the Cairn terrier—that being the wiry tan breed that played Toto in The Wizard of Oz—the Sunflower State’s official dog. This seemingly uncontroversial measure was vigorously derided on the Internet and drew the ire of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which pretty much doomed the bill before it had a chance to build momentum. “If passed, HB 2513 would worsen one of Kansas’ serious problems: its reputation as a hotbed for cruel, filthy puppy mills,” wrote Martin Mersereau, director of PETA’s cruelty investigations department...


    "I Don't Think We're in Kansas Anymore, Toto"


    .

    ReplyDelete
  12. How Big is This Sucker? Check Out the Man in the Picture


    Oh, and one company is working on a 20 Megawatt Whirlygig. (it would take approx. 120 acres of solar panels to get the equivalent energy.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why are they doing this? Simple, the larger the windmill the lower the cost per watt.

    In the U.S., todays models are, already, 30% More Cost Efficient than the models from just a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of Kansas: They have more megawatts of Windpower under construction than any other state.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unless monthly depositing only applies to businesses.

    I used to be blonde.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of commission salemen find it's easier to make monthly deposits.

      Thanks for the support. :)

      Delete
  16. If that is the fear among many, it is the heartfelt desire among some -- including some of the most prominent lower court judges placed on the federal bench by the last several Republican presidents. That was the message of a remarkable concurring opinion issued last Friday by D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, an appointee of President George W. Bush, and Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee. The opinion accuses the Supreme Court of "abdicat[ing] its constitutional responsibility to protect economic liberty completely" and suggests that economic liberties should be recognized as a fundamental constitutional right. It advocates that courts step in whenever they discover "the political temptation to exploit the public appetite for other people's money--either by buying consent with broad-based entitlements or selling subsidies, licensing restrictions, tariffs, or price fixing regimes to benefit narrow special interests."

    That sentence reads like gibberish, perhaps to disguise just how radical it is, but let me try to translate it into English. Federal programs such as Social Security and Medicare are classic examples of "broad-based entitlements." Much of the regulation by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are carried out through "licensing" requirements. Tariffs have been a part of trade regulation since the nation's Founding. And so on. Brown would have judges to invalidate much of the Twentieth Century and she would celebrate the return of "America's cowboy capitalism," that this would produce. Citing Hungarian anarchist Anthony De Jasay, Brown endorses the notion that "Civil society, 'once it grows addicted to redistribution, changes its character and comes to require the state to 'feed its habit.'" She accuses judges who refuse to trump the decisions of the political branches of leaving property "to the mercy of the pillagers." Wow.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was going to make a moderately funny joke about blonde vs brunette but the D.C. judge in question is black. From her wiki entry:

    Brown has said that when she was young, she was so liberal in her politics that she was almost Maoist, although she is now conservative.

    This is what worries me about modern conservatives. They arrive at their ideological place by whiplash rather than considered thought. Anything that is Not-A is defacto OK or at least better. Not-Bush. Not progressive. Not centralized. And on.

    This country needs to tamp down the pendulum swings and think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Not religious.

      Not conservative.

      Not...

      .

      Delete
    2. I object to Religion being shoved down my throat.

      I will defend to the death the individual's right to choose his personal belief system.

      As long as it doesn't entail abuse of women and children.

      It's pretty damn simple for something so contentious.

      Delete
    3. As for the "Not conservative" part, Gary Hart had a recent piece in Huffington Post alleging that the new moderate is actually the old conservative which struck me as more true than not, although labels, esp but certainly not limited to ideological labels need to be used with caution as noted.

      What Rufus said below.

      The country needs BOTH.

      There, haven't used caps in a long time.

      Delete
    4. The scale, scope and heterogeneity of thought over the full spectrum of Huffington Post writing far exceeds the monotonous drumbeat of "Not-A" emanating from PM where the rollback of Armageddon is quite simple - eliminate government, as per the Judge Brown screed.

      It can't happen here of course.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  18. .

    Jeez, Janice and David sound like they've been drinking the same water as Doug.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. When the system is working properly the job of the liberal is to move society forward; the job of the conservative is to keep "tapping" on the brakes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Unfortunately, too many of today's conservatives want to "slam on" the brakes, and throw the whole thing into Reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  21. .

    IMO, you have to be careful labelling people. To label the ideological dog fights in Washington today as a struggle between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' is a bit misleading and simplistic. Perhaps we should label the political right currently running the show as 'Conservatives' (big C) and those on the left as 'Liberals' (big L) just to show their political orientation.

    Face it, over the past thirty years, it would be a stretch to call many of the policies advanced by the Conservatives truly conservative. Likewise, the Liberals of today don't really reflect the principles of 'classical liberalism'.

    Now if you want to ignore the politics of it and discuss the shifting mores and ethics of our society in general or how they affect specific issues, then the terms liberal and conservative more readily apply.

    But, IMO, you should clarify and identify of which you are speaking. Otherwise, it leads to tangential discussions that lead to confusion.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree, Q. A sizable population of the political class seems to be possessed of "'roid rage" right now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The New Conservatism (Link)


    The number of Congressional Democrats today who could be described as traditional liberals can be counted on the fingers of one hand and they are elected by a majority in their districts who agree with their beliefs. So, let's be honest about political positions. The new right used to be the far right, the center is where moderate conservatives used to be, and those advocating Rooseveltian policies are very few.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Gary Hart points out some general truths in parts of his articles but then he blows it reverting to rhetorical tricks.

      When he says the goal posts have shifted to the right he insists it is because of the Congressional right. He points out the micro change among the GOP where the 'new' right is now the hard right and he ignores the macro truth that the country as a whole has shifted right.

      He correctly points out that the GOP is out of touch with Americans when it comes to taxes and the deficit; but then he shifts when it comes to Obamacare (where the public is against it) and defends it by saying it can't be liberal since the idea of the mandate was originally a GOP one. Hart is a typical politician.

      He articulates the case against the GOP but then ignores the one against the Dems.

      .

      Delete
  24. Lucent Nugent:

    Nugent made the comments during an interview at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, comparing Obama and his administration to "coyotes" that needed to be shot and encouraging voters to "chop [Democrats'] heads off in November."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Nugent is an embarrassment to Michigan.

      We have tried to have him renditioned to Idaho where his mindset would be more amenible.

      He and Bob could get together. Ted could kill some wolves and Bob could talk about killing some wolves.

      .

      .

      Delete
  25. More than 300 economists, including three nobel laureates, have signed a petition calling attention to the findings of a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which suggests that if the government legalized marijuana it would save $7.7 billion annually by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug. The report added that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed marijuana at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco.

    That's as much as $13.7 billion per year, but it's still minimal when compared to the federal deficit, which hit $1.5 trillion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    While the economists don't directly call for pot legalization, the petition asks advocates on both sides to engage in an "open and honest debate" about the benefits of pot prohibition.

    Link


    Still a hell of a lot more than the puny $750 million estimated inflow from the IRS Passport-gate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Economist Stephen Easton wrote in Businessweek that the financial benefits of pot legalization may be even bigger than Miron's findings estimate. Based on the amount of money he thinks it would take to produce and market legal marijuana, combined with an estimate of marijuana consumers, Eatson guesses that legalizing the drug could bring in $45 to $100 billion per year. Easton’s name doesn't appear on the petition.

    ReplyDelete
  27. .

    I object to Religion being shoved down my throat.


    Examples would be nice.

    On a strictly individual basis, I find it impossible to have religion shoved down your throat unless you willingly allow it.

    In societal terms, here in the US, on issues affected by or impacting on religion there tends to be a self-correcting factor. It may take time, but things tend to sort themselves out (if not to the point of universal agreement at least to a working consensus).

    I agree with Rufus' rubrics noted below (at least what I think he means). However, in looking at Ruf's statement that "the job of the liberal is to move society forward", I disagree with those who would automatically assume that the forward movement is always positive. Or, that it is inevitably permanent.


    Some rather generalized definitions.

    BELIEFS are those things you hold to be true.
    Given those beliefs your estimation of the relative importance of the "true things" are your VALUES.
    MORALS are a generalized feeling, based on your values, of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.
    ETHICS arise when you try to codify your morals in concrete terms.


    The ethics of a society are reflected through its system of laws.

    The morals and ethics of a society tend to shift over time and not always in the same direction. Rufus' point that conservatives may even try to 'slam the whole thing into reverse' sounds like a negative thing. But it requires specifics, examples if you like.

    Words like 'progress' or even 'positive' can be subjective. It depends on whose ox is being gored. Those who viewed societal trends of thirty years ago with equanimity as positive may now view any reversal of those trends with frustration, as having those changes shoved down their throat.

    General statements are useless. You need examples. In our society, we are forced to take our 'bad' with the others 'good' with the hope that it will one day be 'corrected' or, if you like, reversed.

    Shit happens. In a democracy, we sometimes have to live with it, at least until it gets reversed.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  28. Examples would be nice.

    Relates to the second statement about defending to the death a person's right to choose his belief system within specific societal constraints such as abuse of women and children.


    The utter contempt from some/many/most (it's a subjective number since polling it is nearly impossible) who self-describe as Christians for those with other beliefs ranging from agnostic to atheist to deist to one of the other major religions is not consistent with freedom of choice. Religious chauvinism is no more acceptable than any other kind of presumed superiority. For some/many/most in the Republican Party non-Christians need not apply.

    ReplyDelete
  29. heck, non-christian politicians don't stand a chance in American politics. God Bless America!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hold on, Lieberman was Jewish wasn't he? Strike that - there is some chance.

      Delete
  30. .

    Again, way too general.

    I could rewrite your statement, "The utter contempt from some/many/most...who self-describe as agnostics, aetheist, deists or one of the other major religions for those who are Christian is not consistent with freedom of choice."

    or

    "For some/many/most in most political parties in the US non-Christians need not apply."

    Both revised statements would, IMO, apply as much as your original ones.

    It just appears you have a bug up your ass over Christians and Republicans.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears to me that you're projecting.

      A case of Projecting Too Much.

      Delete
    2. RE: Christians and Republicans

      The Tea Party Republicans I don't support. I consider them radical and bad for this country.

      Some/many/most Christians need reminding that I am whole in body and mind, possessing a full set of civil rights, with or without the spirit of God to inform my life. Failure to believe is not (yet) a felony, a ticket to hell, or an embarrassing social faux pas.

      Delete
    3. .

      Nonsense.

      I can take Christians or leave them and I have no fear that they will be shoving their beliefs down my throat. The fact that you lump all 'Christians' into one monolithic group without recognizing the diversity of opinion, belief, and actions that exists within the religion on a broad range of issues amazes me.

      I suspect you attitude is the result of some specific incident or action that affected you personally. As far as projection, look in the mirror.

      With regard to the GOP, I can't deny my disdain for the current group we have in D.C. However, I feel the same disdain for the current group of Dems. That's why I object to you restricting your condemnation to the GOP (in this case regarding their propensity for choosing Christians as candidates).

      .

      Delete
    4. lump all 'Christians' into one monolithic group

      No, hence the "some/many/most" quantitative descriptor.

      Calm down.

      Delete
    5. the result of some specific incident or action

      Projection in its purest form.

      Delete
    6. restricting your condemnation to the GOP (in this case regarding their propensity for choosing Christians as candidates).

      The "Religious Right" refers to whom?

      Delete
    7. The lessons of Christianity, as a metaphor, are profound in their implications for this life - and the next.

      What blares out of the TV on Sunday morning, less so.

      A distinction I have made on multiple occasions.

      Delete
    8. .

      No, hence the "some/many/most" quantitative descriptor.


      You merely parsed (quantified if you like) it to a degree where you have said nothing.


      Projection in its purest form.


      It is not me that is worried about religion or any other 'ism' for that matter being 'shoved down my throat'.


      The "Religious Right" refers to whom?


      A catch phrase coined by the loyal opposition to speak of fundamentalists and evangelicals yet you expand it to include conservatives. That's weak. Define your terms. More importantly get specific. Is it the idea of the religious right you dislike or are there specific teachings you disagree with?

      .

      Delete
    9. You merely parsed (quantified if you like) it to a degree where you have said nothing.

      Stipulating to an indeterminate quantity - using reasonable shorthand appropriate to a blog, possibly less so in a legal brief - is not saying nothing.

      It is not me that is worried about religion or any other 'ism' for that matter being 'shoved down my throat'.

      Quirk: "Not religious"

      Max: Not amenable to imposition of religion by throat shoving or any other means.

      I believe you raised the subject and yet again mischaracterized my position presumably for effect.

      A catch phrase coined by the loyal opposition to speak of fundamentalists and evangelicals yet you expand it to include conservatives.

      Pure BS. The polling is out there. Look at some of it before making blanket characterizations that have no basis in fact - let alone reality.

      Delete
    10. First line should have been italicized.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. .

      I believe you raised the subject and yet again mischaracterized my position presumably for effect.


      You believe wrong. My comment, "Not Religion. Not conservatism." was in response to your comment directly preceding mine that stated

      This is what worries me about modern conservatives. They arrive at their ideological place by whiplash rather than considered thought. Anything that is Not-A is defacto OK or at least better. Not-Bush. Not progressive. Not centralized. And on.

      My comment was merely to point out the irony in that you seem to do the same thing when it comes to religion and conservatism. Somewhere along the way I also pointed out that you don't seem to discriminate in your condemnation of conservatives. Conservative A = Conservative B = Conservative C. There is no distinction between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives for instance.

      The same thing that worries you about modern conservatives is the same thing that worries me about you.


      Pure BS. The polling is out there. Look at some of it before making blanket characterizations that have no basis in fact - let alone reality.


      Once more I have to point out the irony as well as the inconsistency. Not only as to your point about blanket characterizations but also about polling. Yesterday, when I suggested polling indicated a specific trend, you indicated it was all BS, media-driven I believe was your term.

      Today, you throw out a vague statement about Christian contempt but indicate it can't be quantified (which to my mind says exactly zip) because (it's a subjective number since polling it is nearly impossible)

      Yet, now you offer up polling to prove your point that, I assume, the religious right and modern conservatism are equivalent.

      So let me get this straight.

      Polling is ok if it supports your point (whatever that happens to be). However, if it doesn't support your point, it is media-driven BS or impossible to get.

      You state that religion is being driven down your throat; yet, you refuse to provide examples.

      You indicate your conclusion (again my assumption) that the religious right is equivalent to the conservatives and that this can be supported by polls yet you offer no polls.

      Then you say I have mischaracterized your position "presumably for effect".

      To which I can only ask "What position?"

      You have merely offered “blanket characterizations” with no specifics.

      .

      Delete
  31. Consider the pressure on Obama to "prove" his Christian fealty. My gut tells me he's more of a deist.

    I honestly don't care as long as he's not doing ritual sacrifice in the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Catherine the Great learned the importance of apparent religiousity in politics by witnessing her husbands fall from power when he dissed the church. Mind you that was many years ago and they weren't voting folk in as King or Queen but the issue is the same - don't mess with religion for a lot of power therein resides!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Matt Bai did an article detailing that the last debt ceiling negotiations collapsed because Boehner couldn't bring Cantor and the rest of the Tea Party on board with the then current compromise plan. It's a fairly lengthy article but very informative.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Quirk drives a cab in Detroit.

    Remember how he talked about hiding income once, under the guise of Souls are Us? and driving around Detroit for 'the fun of it'? Souls are Us might be the name of the cab company?


    xxxx

    Did anyone notice how Mrs Romney is being criticized for staying at home and raising a family when Mrs. Palin was criticized fro abandoning her family raising duties to have a career?

    This is the Democratic Party for you
    .

    Total hypocrites always have been. Unlike the Republicans who are so only part of the time.

    xxxx

    Senator Lieberman is an example of a successful non- Christian politician.
    There are hundred of others. Locally the Mayor of my town has been Jewish more often than not. Dale says Obama is our first Muslim President, though he says he is not.

    Wasn't he sworn in by that Muslim Senator from Michigan, or Minnesota?

    xxxxx

    ReplyDelete
  36. And women evolved white skin so that men wouldn't mistake them for bats, in the cave, and eat them.

    See 'How African Bushmen evolved large bottoms to attract African men' and other such ridiculously racist theories.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Women are smart; they evolved blond (white) hair to blend in with the snow and ice so the polar bears wouldn't eat them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Best comment of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Best comment of the day at 2012 02:35

    ReplyDelete
  40. Best comment of the day at 2012 02:35


    It was so the polar bears could mate with them and feel not out of place. But why not white hair all over? Ah, after the mating the woman kill polar bear, and wear them as clothing. They became so close they even created a totem out of it 'bear woman' of the Klondike.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The question at the heart of the current debate about high-frequency trading is whether the automation of trading -- and in Tower's case, the ability to maximize profits by executing trades faster than anyone else -- really does make the world better.

    *************

    The conversation switches to how he fits into the rest of the finance world. What about the loss of trust -- for both the general public and some traditional traders? Or that some people think firms like Gorton's are capable of wreaking havoc? And that some traders think people like Gorton are turning the stock market into a swarming hive of automatons?

    Mark Gorton is squinting again. He insists he doesn't think he represents anything new. The difference between high-frequency trading and traditional Wall Street is not much more than "a difference in skills," Gorton says. "It used to be that firms would want to hire economics majors and now you hire computer science majors." That much is different, he allows.

    Link

    I'm not sure he makes a credible case.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Death is necessary to exploit to the fullest the advantages of sexual reproduction.

    erossynthanados--a new word! sure sounds nice

    The healthy connection is they both lead to something, in this world and the next.

    See: Whitman but I repeat myself.

    ReplyDelete
  43. EBay Inc.'s quarterly profit and revenue rose at a healthy clip and the company upgraded its full-year earnings forecast—signs that its turnaround is still going strong.

    The e-commerce company said Wednesday that its first-quarter earnings improved 20% from a year earlier to $570 million, while revenue rose 29% to $3.28 billion. The better-than-expected results seem to confirm that eBay—a onetime Internet-retailing pioneer that was in danger of becoming a dot-com has-been—is continuing a comeback...

    ReplyDelete
  44. We begin our public affections in our families. .  .  . We pass on to our neighborhoods and our habitual provincial connections. These are inns and resting places.

    ...

    Today, in our anxiety about the excesses of individualism and statism, we may find ourselves looking upon civil society not merely as a corrective to those excesses but as a be-all and end-all, a sanctuary in itself, a sufficient habitat for the human spirit. What our forefathers impress upon us is a more elevated as well as a more dynamic view of civil society, one that exists in a continuum with “political society”—that is, government—just as “civil associations” do with “political associations,” “private affections” with “public affections,” and, most memorably, the “little platoon” with “a love to our country and to mankind.”

    This is civil society properly understood (as Tocqueville would say), a civil society rooted in all that is most natural and admirable—family, community, religion—and that is also intimately related to those other natural and admirable aspects of life, country and humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "We have a better classification with better powers to predict. It is a new way of selecting the best trials for patients and that's the first use we will make of this," Professor Caldas said.

    "It's not going to change the way we manage women being treated in the NHS tomorrow, but it will surely change the way we manage clinical trials [so that] we will be running trials that are much more targeted at each of these different cancer subtypes," he said.

    The study, carried out in co-operation with the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, also discovered that certain genes are involved in either driving breast cancer or holding it back from spreading. Some of these genes are known to be involved in the production of enzymes within human cells, which will make them attractive targets for the development of new anti-cancer drugs, said Sam Aparicio of UBC, the study's co-leader.

    ReplyDelete
  46. At last week's Summit of the Americas, President Barack Obama reiterated his belief that the war on drugs is winnable, and that the alternative—legalization or decriminalization—isn't one the U.S. is willing to consider. This despite the fact that an increasing number of Central and South American governments are considering those very alternatives.

    ...

    Read five of the worst, if not the five worst statements made by the Obama administration about Mexico's drug war below.

    5.) "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

    Who said it: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

    Why she’s wrong: Dozens of news organizations cited Clinton’s (and Obama’s) claim that American guns are the weapons of choice in Mexico’s drug war, but that’s simply not true. “Many of the weapons are stolen from the Mexican military and police, often by deserters,” Jacob Sullum wrote in 2009.

    ...

    4.) "The danger here is on several fronts. Number one is the tremendous violence. I think the numbers that Mexican officials have mentioned are 150,000 who have died by violence, mainly between cartels in Mexico.”

    Who said it: Leon Panetta, director of the CIA

    Why he's wrong: While the drug war in Mexico has been outrageously deadly, the highest publicly available estimate of drug war casualties during the presidency of Felipe Calderon, tallied by NGOs and journalists, is roughly 50,000. The Mexican government says even that number is too high.

    ...

    3.) "It's worth debating [legalization] in order to lay to rest some of the myths that are associated with the notion of legalization. The debate always occurs, understandably, in the context of serious violence that occurs with the society, particularly in societies that don't have the institutional framework and the structure to deal with organized, illicit operations."

    Who said it: Joe Biden, vice president of the United States

    Why he's wrong: A couple of reasons. The first is that the real “myths” associated with legalization, as demonstrated by Portugal, are the ones being spread by the White House and its agencies. Second, while the legalization debate may “always” occur in countries destabilized by drug war violence, it doesn’t occur only in those countries.


    Drug War

    ReplyDelete
  47. On this day last year, S&P lowered its long-term outlook on U.S. government debt to "negative" from "stable." The move set the stage for the eventual credit downgrade over the summer that rocked markets and caused some of the most volatile daily swings in stock-market history.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The banks' dwindling cash piles and the return of market turbulence has some experts, such as Citigroup chief economist Willem Buiter, predicting the ECB will be forced to make another round of loans later this year.

    That is something the central bank's German faction is reluctant to do.

    ECB hawks, especially the German contingent, are very wary of the inflationary impact of the program and already are pushing for the formulation of an exit plan.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Secret Service agents guarding President look for cocaine, heroine,but don't seem to find any.

    Who would have thought they might have found something, other than a few hookers, of course.

    How far to the top does this go?

    Let the rumors begin.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Secret Service agents guarding President look for cocaine, heroine,but don't seem to find any.

    Who would have thought they might have found something, other than a few hookers, of course.

    How far to the top does this go?

    Let the rumors begin.


    He offer her $30 bucks!

    ??

    There hasn't been 10X inflation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. To which I can only ask "What position?"

    (Reply option upthread doesn't work.)

    This can go on forever - literally as well as metaphorically.

    I'm throwing it out to the bullpen.

    Is my position best characterized as:

    (a) ambiguous

    (b) ironic

    (c) inconsistent

    (d) all of the above

    (e) suspiciously blonde

    (f) I don't even know who you are

    (g) holy-graphical

    (h) somehow related to slightly used underwear

    (i) Not-plaid

    (j) desperately Seeking a Swan Song

    (k) Stella! Stella! Stella!

    (l) Frankly my dear ...

    ReplyDelete
  52. (m) you said what?

    (n) Has Charlie Rose been informed?

    (o) we can't decide between Meryl Streep or LiLo for the movie role

    (p) you should get your affairs in order

    (q) you *have* had an affair haven't you?

    (r) I'm betting you can't make it to the end of the alphabet

    ReplyDelete
  53. (s) Lawdy Miss Clawdy (Link)

    (t) Unholy (Link)

    (u) Go to Hell

    (v,w,x,y,z) open to audience participation

    ReplyDelete
  54. Replies
    1. .


      I take this to mean you have no logical argument to offer.

      You are currently indulging in the 'democratic fallacy' although I will admit your use of the 'laughter as a diversionary tactic' fallacy was pretty good.

      I could probably list a number of other logical fallacies you indulged in above but I won't bother.

      You do realize that last "Go to Hell" made my day.

      :)

      .

      Delete
    2. No.

      You're just boring the crap out of me.

      I am making a couple of perfectly valid points.

      You are countering with ... Alice Cooper argumentation.

      So be it.

      Delete
    3. .

      Alice Cooper argumentation.

      Lordy, where do you comes up with this stuff?

      .

      Delete
    4. .

      He was my neighbor growing up, Sam.

      Kind of a goofy little kid (who wasn't); but old Vincent has done well for himself.

      .

      Delete
  55. On April 4, Mitt Romney had his turn in front of the newspapermen. “The president came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making—and criticized policies no one is proposing.

    It’s one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record.”

    One suspects that even Romney had no idea how right he was.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Am watching Jodie Foster, and Mather Mchoweveryouspellhisname in "ET comes a'calling (or whatever the name of that movie is.)

    The Science vs "Faith" aspect is interesting in light of the last month or so's discussions, here.

    I must be a "scientist" by nature, because I just don't understand "faith." I mean, I Really don't understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Google "god gene."

    Interesting stuff - genetic basis for faith.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hey! I just noticed that the Rss feed of this domain is functioning without any mistakes, did you somehow execute all the options on your own or you used the initial settings of the widget?

    ReplyDelete