Sarah Palin, during an interview conducted with her during the TeaBag Convention, had to read from her hand some of her talking points. Because it is so hard to remember: Obama bad….Deregulate…Freedom..Pro America. Thank god she’s not like that bumbling fool when he’s away from a teleprompter, and is so able to conduct the same three points ad infinitum. Mrs. Palin is just what this country needs. A straight shooter, regular old hockey mom just like you. And unlike those suits in Washington, she doesn’t need to know big fancy words, or how to say an entire sentence out loud without the words “you Betcha” or “goshdarnit”. Real life isn’t C-Span, and besides that stuff is boring. Always covering actual substance, and details. We Americans have shit to do, so we need a leader who doesn’t bog us down with thinking about things, or actually analyzing policy and details. It worked well for the first eight years of this century, and just look where Obama has led us…

**update**

This may be what was actually on her hand, big words and phrases like budget cuts, lift American Spirits, etc.

As if it wasn’t enough that large, stinging insects could somehow secretly hide in my dorm room and reappear underfoot in the dead of winter, a new bee talent was unveiled this week:  they can remember faces.  Better than that, they do it using the same process that we do.

A group of researchers set out to experiment with bee cognition by testing the tiny insects’ abilities to distinguish faces from non-faces (rewarding the bees with sugar water for their correct choices).  Not only did the bees excel at this, they even went one step further and began to distinguish (in memory) between individual faces (associating the faces with the amount of sugar water).

After studying the bees’ technique, the researchers discovered that the same process of configural processing characteristic of human vision (amassing shapes to create recognizable patterns) is utilized in bee vision.

Now, sure this is interesting on a lot of scientific levels.  But, personally, I find the whole thing a little creepy.  It’s just not okay with me that every time I make a half-hearted swat I’m engraving myself for life on a possibly vengeful brain.

I’m thinking through all the great animated movies (Antz, anyone?) and I’m feeling more and more troubled.  Is there really nowhere left in the wild kingdom that I can defend myself without incurring creepily cognizant wrath?

Goldman Sachs announced its executive bonus compensation today, rounding out Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s 2009 bonus to $9 million in stock options. JP Morgan Chase & Co. announced their CEO, James Dimon, would earn $17 million in stock options for 2009. Both of these numbers are relatively small for Wall Street compensation, but still a huge increase over the zero compensation policy both companies instituted in 2008.

The Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs wanted to show “restraint” in compensating their executives, balancing two prominent conflicting interests. The public’s outcry against staggering bonus compensation during a recession caused primarily by the banking industry is well founded, but the Board also believes that top executives for the world’s most prestigious banking firms should be compensated fairly.

The Board also moved to compensate Blankfein entirely with shares of stock, perhaps in an attempt to tie in the company’s performance with his compensation. I see a few problems with this. Firstly, by giving their CEO compensation based off their company’s performance, it could create an incentive for executives to fudge the numbers to shareholders regarding the financial condition of the company. The CEO and CFO are ultimately responsible for the creation of financial documents for their company, which are then used by investors to value the company, which causes the stock price to go up or down, depending on how well the market perceives the company. You can start to see how this all circles back to the executives.

I’m not a banker, nor do I have any intention of becoming a banker, but even I can see why this might not be the greatest idea ever. Perhaps we should just keep their bonuses in cash, or create a hybrid combination the two, but certainly not all stock options.

On a lighter note, here’s an interesting slide show of the most awesome beds of all time. Enjoy.

A scientific study has once again given support to the theory that homosexuality is innate – and not a choice.

In an interview promoting his new book, Biologie de l’homosexualité. On naît homosexuel, on ne choisit pas de l’être (in English: The Biology of Homosexuality: You’re Born Homosexual, You Don’t Choose to Be), animal researcher and neuro-scientist Jacques Balthazart states:

“Homosexuality is provoked by a combination of genetic and hormonal factors in the embryo,” and that, based on several laboratory studies on mice and other animals, “… conditions undergone by the mother during pregnancy can unbalance the embyronic hormonal system and influence the future child’s sexual orientation.”

According to these studies:

“Homosexuals are exposed to atypical levels of certain hormones during their embryonic stage, too many androgens for females and too few for males.”

Furthermore, explains Dr. Balthazart:

“It is possible to alter the levels of embryonic testosterone levels in mice at specific periods of their embryonic development and when these embryos have reached adult stage later find characteristics normally attributed to the opposite sex, including sexual attraction to their own sex.”

Even more striking is the fact that these changes can even be induced after birth (and by extension, after embryonic development).

“In the male mouse, … rapid changes in the concentration of androgens in the brain are followed after only a few minutes with changes in sexual behavior normally attributed uniquely to the opposite sex,”

And, most importantly, Dr. Balthazart concludes by saying that,

“If homosexuality … is not a choice, there is absolutely no reason [for society] to persecute them.”

*Important Note: I feel that I should disclose that I translated the quotes used here myself, so there is a slight possibility some of them may not be exact translations. The original article can be found here, in case you’d like to check for yourself.

Groundhog’s Day has come and gone. The legendary Punxsutawney Phil emerged early yesterday morning from his humble abode in Pennsylvania and made his decision. “As the sky shines bright above me, my shadow I see beside me, six more weeks of winter it will be,” announced his handlers, prominently confirming the superstition that winter ends sometime around March 21^st.

The Wall Street Journal came out with an interesting article yesterday regarding the peculiarities of the groundhog weather prediction industry. Although our dear friend Phil has the biggest following, there are 17 groundhog lodges in Pennsylvania. Bill Deeley, the president of the Punxsutawney Inner Circle (the SPECTRE-like organization that oversees Phil-related Groundhog Day celebrations), believes that there are over 12 other imposter groundhog weathermen around the state.

“We call them all imposters. We are the real McCoy,” said Deeley.

In the spirit of free market capitalism, I say let the best groundhog win. After watching yesterday’s festivities on DVR, I noticed that Punxsutawney Phil isn’t exactly calling the shots. While the legend stipulates six more weeks of winter if he sees his shadow, I don’t really think hoisting him by his neck and presenting him to a crowd of 15,000 accomplishes that. It’s more Lion King than anything.

There are plenty of other rodents out there just begging to get their 15 seconds of fame. Why not a squirrel, or possibly a chipmunk? The practice of using rodents to predict weather started in Germany, where the villagers would consult the local badger for their meteorological needs. The groundhog was just a makeshift substitute when the German immigrants couldn’t find a readily accessible badger supply in Pennsylvania.

I’m sad to say that in this digital age, the possibility of a time without groundhog meteorologists is quickly coming to a head. Perhaps Phil needs an iPhone app.

Regardless of which side of the political isle you most closely associate with, $3.8 trillion is a mind-blowing number – no way around it. The gargantuan amount is sure to grab headlines and, most certainly, people will balk at the figure without any real understanding of what the money is needed for. Even if you, unlike the vast majority of Americans, do make an effort to understand the budget, it can be baffling.

I found two relatively straightforward (and short!) rundowns of President Obama’s proposed budget.

The first, from The Economist, does a great job of explaining why the budget is so enormous, points out the often overlooked program cuts and spending reductions enacted by Obama, and does a good job of addressing key budget concerns, such as spending on job creation and the possibility of entitlement spending reduction.

The second, which appeared in the New York Times, emphasizes President Obama’s spending priorities. I must say, they seem spot on: increased spending on education and clean energy, restrained military spending and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Spending on job creation is emphasized again as well. It also successfully breaks down the almost incomprehensible $3.8 trillion number into slightly more digestible pieces (albeit still ridiculously large numbers) and, perhaps most importantly, lays out why healthcare reform is so necessary to a vital economy:

“…if you’re feeling sticker shock, we are, too. It is important to remember that most of that $3.8 trillion, nearly $2.4 trillion, is for mandatory spending — on programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and for interest on the national debt. Medicare and Medicaid alone will cost $788 billion; that should be another reminder of why the country needs health care reform.”

While $3.8 trillion is a huge number to wrap your head around, I believe it is all  necessary at this time. If we want our national budgets to come down – the CBO stated last week the national debt is on course to triple in ten years – we need to look at reforms to reduce the cost of entitlement programs (cough cough, healthcare, cough cough) and job creation.

Of course, this is isn’t to say that the budget doesn’t have it’s problems. Paul Krugman addresses those, and their causes, here.

Read the rest of this entry »

There seems to be a trend growing on The Facebook these days. Excuse me, I should be more specific as Facebook tends to be a menagerie of college and twenty-something trends. The one that has most recently caught my attention is the “change your profile picture to [blank] week/month/fortnight”. Using an image to represent yourself isn’t a new concept, of course, and it started off on Facebook innocently enough. Themes like your favorite animal or Pokemon were cute, and the niches soon jumped on board to give everybody their day in the sun (video game characters, “retro” week, etc.)

The most recent and popular one, though, involves posting on your profile page the image of a celebrity you resemble. It might not appear to be all that different than the ones listed above, but this particular theme has actually managed to fall into a far lower intellectual bracket. When you were free to select whatever character or pudding flavor you felt best defined you, at least you made the decision on the basis of your perception of your personal characteristics. This look-alike trend removes any personality from the decision and assigns you a celebrity persona based solely on how you look.

While Facebook has never exactly been a one-stop shop for the intelligentsia, most people would rate it a step above other networking services due to factors like security and customizability. Why, then, is it fashionable to give up your individuality so that other people can relate you to some B-list celebrity? Does it give anyone a better knowledge of who I am just because certain people think I look like “Boy Meets World” star Ben Savage?

I’ve never tried crack. I have no intention of ever doing so, and can only speculate why anyone would want to associate with a crackhead. However, if I had to guess what it would feel like, I would assume it would be similar to the addiction I have to Chad Ochocinco’s Twitter account.

Ochocinco is quite possibly the Muhammad Ali of professional football. Sure, he may not be the greatest wide receiver ever, but it’s his shameless self-promotion and flamboyant personality that make him such a phenomenon.  That, and the fact he’s changed his name to match his playing number, and is planning on doing it again. In Japanese.

Ochocinco’s Twitter account, called the Ocho Cinco News Network (OCNN), is rapidly becoming the premiere example of a new type of reporting. Although Ochocinco’s in-game updates have upset the NFL, as a fan I can assure you everyone else is digging it. Reportedly, Ochocinco is recruiting other NFL players to start acting as “reporters” for his OCNN, and has already gotten the Raven’s Ray Rice and the Redskin’s Chris Cooley to sign on.

The fallout from this lighthearted endeavour could be significant. If professional athletes break news themselves and pre-empt the major networks, it could signal a change in the way sporting news operates in the digital age. Whether Ochocinco becomes the next Edward Murrow, time will tell, but until then, I’m just happy to keep updated on his Call of Duty and clubbing adventures.

I’ve long been amazed by the fact that the Black Eyed Peas can release a song that you will swear is the worst, most god awful POS you’ve ever heard, only to then nearly immediately top it with another song you make that same statement about.

Yet it appears Jamie Foxx is trying to one up them. Within what seemed like seconds, or hours?, of the Black Eyed Peas…”spirited” performance at the Grammys , I found Jamie Foxx singing “Blame it” (PLEASE, we need more auto tune, entire songs devoid of anything remotely natural or authentic) with T-Pain posing as conductor,  while Jamie Foxx much like B.E.P. plays dress up. But it gets better, because Doug E. Fresh and Random Morbidly Obese Dancing Teen Girl come on stage as well, finally ending in Slash, yes THAT Slash, coming out and playing the guitar solo to November Rain. Because for me, the only thing better than “Blame It”, is that song mixed with live beatboxing and the guitar solo to a 20 year old song most people who listen to Jamie Foxx have never heard, and those who do know it have tried to forget, including Axl Rose.

I really have to wonder, especially when an event such as this is broadcast on live tv, is who enjoys this? I know in the age of mashups, a lot of people like to hear multiple songs with no connection, but on top of each other at the same time? Do you also enjoy the sound of an out of control train running into a line of school buses filled with small children?

But I guess when the producers of Saw can make six of those wastes of film, it shouldn’t be a surprise.

I just flipped on the Grammys (not on purpose), to see the Black Eyed Peas Performance of “New Song, worse than the last” and the “tonight’s gonna be a good night” song.  In case you unfortunately missed it, it was like watching Transformers 2. A trainwreck wrapped in an auto-tuned crap, with MC Pee Pants, Not.Will.Smith, and relegated to side duty dancing(token?) Native American guy.  We’re not getting any more talented, so let’s just throw more absurd nonsensical pointless junk in your face. Walking…lips? and what looked like cheap silver spraypainted cardboard on people like speakers? At least there weren’t balls on Transformers here. I think.