when the status quo frustrates.

Remember the good old days, when bin Laden was one of us?

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Tom Hanks. Julia Roberts. I figure those two would do just about any film as long as it paid well enough and gave them the contractual minimum of 3 Oscar moments*.

Aaron Sorkin. Mike Nichols. Them? Not so much. …Okay, maybe Nichols at this point, what with his late-term resume of stinkers like Regarding Henry and The Birdcage. But he’s still got some hangover cred from The Graduate, Catch-22, etc. And Sorkin’s a known lefty, not to mention a guy who felt politically competent enough to pretend on NBC that he knew how the country should be run.

Why on Earth, then, would a Sorkin script shot by Mike Nichols result in a trailer like this?

The trailer leaves us with 2 distinct possibilities:

1) It’s designed to get the war-loving rowdies into the theater and then hit them over the head with how best intentions go wrong and we always think we can control this stuff when we can’t.

2) We’re actually witnessing the impending release of a film expressing patriotic nostalgia for our bungled covert military actions that trained Osama bin Laden and eventually led to Taliban rule.

I’d say (hope?) there’s at least a 51% chance of the former. There almost has to be some “we thought we knew how to help but we didn’t” message. Except we did sort of help keep the Soviets at bay, and I’m marginally terrified the film will celebrate that. Don’t put it past citizens of the US to make a movie waxing poetic about fighting a covert war 20 years ago in a country in which we’re losing an explicit war today that nobody even remembers is going on.


Freedom Prophets

*Oscar moments are defined as “cinematic speeches and/or extended reaction shots of no less than 30 seconds in which a stiff upper lip is (barely) kept in the face of tremendous emotional stress and a swelling background orchestra.”

File this away with “housework prevents cancer” and “if your boyfriend drinks alot of mountain dew he’ll be sterile”

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Via Kevin at Slant Truth, a pop psych article is in dire need of more fisking. Purporting to share with us 10 “politically incorrect” “truths” about “human nature” by justifying all your favorite stereotypes, it’s quite a delight of an article. Kevin himself was only able to get past the introduction and first point (Men want to bang Barbie and Barbie alone, and ain’t nothing wrong with that) before he had to stop, presumably from a creeping case of the head-explodies.

Thanks to his excellent groundwork, I was able to get to the third point before my brain stopped functioning in self-defense. (This, by the way, will leave #4-10, such as “Most suicide bombers are Muslim” and “Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist” up for grabs.) It was the audacity for #3 in the face of reality. Sure, we’ve heard a million times that men only want nubile, well-racked 15 year olds and that they are naturally and blamelessly relentlessly polygamous, but did we know that this actually benefits women?

3 Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that’s much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don’t realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

That’s right! Polygamous systems are great for women, who can share the wealth associated with the best men! This leaves only beta-males and super-fuglies out in the cold and really, can you count weak men and ugly women as people? Didn’t think so. Women have been tricked into thinking monogamy is a good deal, but really it’s just preventing them from the happiness of being wife #3 to a much cooler guy than they’re currently chained to.

This is true because having more wives, like having more chairs, doesn’t do anything to divvy up your resources; being the 4th wife of a guy who makes $100,000 a year is superior to being the only wife of a guy who makes $25,000 a year, because the guy who makes more money is obviously better. The status is well worth dealing with the other three wives.

Also, since women today have no access to resources of their own, it makes sense to focus all of our energies on getting the alphaest alpha male we can possible get before we and our children are driven from the tribe and eaten by coyotes.

Of course, to say that “polygamy is better for women than men!” is just so jaw-dropping that I have to assume that this whole article is some sort of shit-stirring put-on. Because, no, really, anyone with a PhD should be willing to show why they fuck they think that. With the recent Warren Jeffs trial, media has recently had polygamy on the brain, and it shouldn’t be too hard to show that polygamy is great for everyone except the genetically unfit.

Let’s see what the benefits of polygamy are:

1. Natural selection, being all-powerful, ensures that only the best of the best make it to the top and earn all that tantalizing wealth and those luscious wives. Power-crazy, insane corrupt people are naturally weeded out:

Warren Jeffs’ official title in the FLDS Church was “President and Prophet, Seer and Revelator”…effs, the sole individual in the church who could perform marriages, was responsible for assigning wives to husbands. Jeffs also had the ability to punish men by reassigning their wives, children, and homes to another man…In July 2004, Warren Jeffs’ nephew, Brent Jeffs, filed a lawsuit against him alleging that in the late 1980s his uncle sodomized him in the Salt Lake Valley compound then owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Brent Jeffs said he was 5 or 6 years old at the time, and that Warren Jeffs’ brothers, also named in the lawsuit, watched and participated in the abuse. Two of Warren Jeffs’ other nephews also made similar abuse claims against him. One of the alleged victims, Clayne Jeffs, committed suicide with a firearm after admitting that Warren Jeffs had sexually assaulted him as a child.[21]

In June 2005, Jeffs was charged with sexual assault on a minor and with conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly arranging, in 2002, a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man who was already married. The girl, known as “Jane Doe IV” (Elissa Wall)[22] testified that she begged “Uncle Rulon” to let her wait until she was older, or choose another man for her. Rulon Jeffs was apparently “sympathetic”, but Warren Jeffs was not, and she was forced to go through with the marriage. The man that she was to marry was apparently her first cousin. The 14 year old alleged that her new husband raped her repeatedly, starting on their wedding night.

2. In the zero-sum game of resource acquisition, we don’t have to take in any other considerations as long as we match nubile young women to men of sufficient status. Stories like this:

Sara Hammon saw some of her sisters pulled out of school to be married to men they didn’t know. She dreaded a similar fate. And so, she ran away from home before she was old enough to drive legally.

She left behind 19 mothers, 74 siblings, and a father she says could never remember her name, even though he repeatedly molested her.

And, she left behind a culture she says was oppressive for young women.

aren’t really how it works at all, you see. Sure, everywhere we see polygamy we see incredible levels of child abuse, sexual dysfunction, and poverty (polygamous communities in the American west suck up social services like a bunch of Fundamentalist money vacuums This is partly because having that many dependents is really tough on a guy, and partly from the fundamentalist Mormon belief that it is righteous to defraud a non-Mormon government.)

Anyway, sure, every time we see a polygamous community we see nothing but unsustainable bad things, but that’s because they’re all doing it wrong. If we did polygamy this other, imaginary perfect way that still somehow managed to favor multiple-wives over multiple-husbands then everything would be cool. Really.

3. The endless wealth of the alpha male should be available for all women to share

Nothing says keeping the resources like acquiring more dependents. If I’m wife #1 to a wealthy guy, I’ve no reason to worry that my standard of living will dip when sexy young wife #2 drops in, and of course we’ll welcome wife #3 with open arms because our husband, a man biologically driven to complete his Barbie collection, would never sacrifice our material comfort by getting more dolls if he can’t afford the bigger Barbie Mansion Playset, right? Plus, under a system where men are slaves to biological imperative and women can only get access to real resources by exploiting this, we never have to worry about being tossed when we’re past our sell-by date.

And if the measure of a man is how many wives he can attract, I suggest you check out Tom Green, and his lovely family desert retreat, Greenhaven. That’s a catch, mind you, the “less desirable” men mentioned in the article can’t even offer their wives the luxury of a bunch of trailers in the desert. They live in caves and eat bugs. Is that what you want, missy? No, then marry the nice man like I told you to.

And you can always leave, if you are that bothered by it, allowing a steady stream of used wives to trickle down to those lonely beta males, or if you’re over 45, a gamma male. This plan is perfect!

Clearly, the evidence shows that Alan S. Miller Ph.D. and Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. aren’t just making shit up, so we have no choice but to accept the other points as unfortunately true, regardless of how it angers our little progressive minds.

All I remember about sex ed is that ill-advised condom on a hot dog demo.

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Sex and money, together at last.

There, that ought to be good for a few interesting stats on Google Analytics. Anyway, DoGooder.tv is offering prizes for sex ed videos, and quite frankly I can’t see why any 15-30 year old would pass up the chance to win a scholarship or an iPhone just for ranting about how much sex ed sucks in an entertaining way. So if you have a video camera and some extra time on your hands think about entering the FreshFocusVideoContest.

Why IE?

Friday, December 7th, 2007

I finally installed Google Analytics on PAB this weekend. We used to be on a dedicated server that gave me a fair number of standard reports on views, etc., but Google Analytics has much more usable data. For example, it’s cool to know that we’ve got peeps in places like Bahrain and Kuwait and Morocco checking us out. Assuming our international audience isn’t primarily made up of comment spammers, we’re delighted to have you!

At the moment, the question I have for our readership is this: why Internet Explorer? 37.77% of PAB readers view us on IE. Firefox is just over 51%, and I don’t personally know anybody on a PC who still uses IE as their browser of choice. Firefox is free, more adherent to web standards, and, well, not Microsoft.

So, IE users of PAB, help this IT geek understand why you use IE. Is it better for you somehow? Is it a pain to download Firefox? Do tell.

Bonus question: for the 3 viewers on a Playstation Portable (PSP), how’s that working out for you?

Remembrance

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Today is National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. It marks the anniversary of the Montréal massacre at École Polytechnique in 1989.

These are the women that Marc Lepine murdered as he shouted, “I hate feminists”:

Geneviève Bergeron, 21
Hélène Colgan, 23
Nathalie Croteau, 23
Barbara Daigneault, 22
Anne-Marie Edward, 21
Maud Haviernick, 29
Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31
Maryse Leclair, 23
Annie St.-Arneault, 23
Michèle Richard, 21
Maryse Laganière, 25
Anne-Marie Lemay, 22
Sonia Pelletier, 28
Annie Turcotte, aged 21

It’s important to remember the lives and deaths of these women. But because I’m one of those uppity feminists, I’d also like to point out that the official National Day of Remembrance frames violence against women in a particular way that does not reflect the experience of most women. Most violence against women is not so dramatic as a deranged misogynist marching into a university and gunning down students. Most violence against women is silenced. It happens in the home, or in distant countries where female civilians are the victims of soldiers who bomb them from the safety of high tech airplanes. It happens in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where women are raped for the coltan in your cellphones and computers. It happens in Nicaragua, where women die because abortion is illegal. It happens in prisons, where 75% of women prisoners are jailed for minor offenses, a third of which are drug-related, where if they are jailed for violent offensives, it is usually against a partner who was previously abusive, and where First Nations women are disproportionately incarcerated.

And it happens in your own backyard, of course. Ten years ago, I worked in a shelter for abused women and children. One night, we got a call from a terrified woman. She wanted to leave her husband. She feared for her life. The worker told her how to get to the shelter and the services that were available for her, but the woman didn’t leave immediately. Shortly after, she was dead, killed by the man she’d married.

Remember the women at École Polytechnique. But don’t forget the violence done to so many others around the world every day.

Bad Behavior behaving badly

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

Apologies to anyone who tried to comment within the last day. We use a plugin called Bad Behavior to help with spam, and it went haywire for everyone who has it installed. I’ve updated it with the new patch, and hopefully all is well. Thanks for your patience, and sorry if this sucked.

Polymers are all around you

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

Anyone one up for a lecture on polymers? Because in about a day or so, I can provide.

Preznit Creationizm

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

Call me a cynic, but now that I am finally accepting the cold hard truth of the world (namely, that Al Gore will not even attempt to be my next President) I have little faith in the Democrats winning a presidential election. Our candidates are either pro-war, formerly pro-war, pro-torture, weak-kneed on health care, and/or previously defeated on another ticket. But forget all that. The *real* uphill battle comes from the media’s historically relentless assault on popular national Democrats and the unrealistic try-to-please-’em-all campaign approach they always seem to take. (Oh, and the creative ballot counting strategies employed by their opposition in certain swing states).

Jimmy Carter won on the heels of Watergate because he wasn’t Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot split the vote. LBJ was able to serve before running. In other words, we haven’t sent out a candidate who won a first term primarily on his/her own merits in a straight-up two-party election since 1960.

1960.

And — hate to say it — but that election might have been fixed, as well.

So if the Democrats continue the trend of suck (gambling 101: always bet with a streak), who will be rolling out ill-conceived domestic policy, rolling back our bodily rights, and rolling over poorer countries beginning in 2009?

Maybe Mike Huckabee.

Giuliani, dubbed “America’s mayor” after the 9/11 attacks, supports abortion rights and gay rights, positions at odds with social conservatives. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney once held similar views but now opposes abortion rights. Arizona Sen. John McCain has had trouble gaining ground among some Republicans who note his crusades on immigration and campaign-finance reform. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who presented himself as the answer for conservatives when he made a late entry into the race in September, has turned out to be a less than energetic campaigner.

It’s all provided an opening for Huckabee — an ordained Baptist minister who has always opposed abortion and raised his hand at one debate to say he didn’t believe in evolution — to attempt the unprecedented.

He’s leading in Iowa right now and blah blah blah, but did you catch the last part of that quote? He’s freely admitted he doesn’t believe in evolution. I know that view exists among general peoples and all, but did you ever in your life think America would elect — or even *threaten* to elect — a man who openly rejected Darwin’s theories?

If he were to win the nomination, you know he’d garner a minimum of 45% of the vote, and probably at least 48% even if he loses. That means that, even if he *isn’t* nominated, I live in a country where almost half the people willing to vote wouldn’t care that they’d be electing a person capable of rational denial to the extent that THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

Maybe this shouldn’t shock me. After all, signs of our open rebellion against common sense and logic are everywhere. We have an economy running on imaginary money and a dollar that’s in the international toilet. We’re raping and pillaging foreign lands for stated reasons everyone knows are false. We have no sense to provide basic care to our own citizens. And we’re too lazy to do anything about warming the planet past the point where millions will certainly die.

If we elect a creationist, I am moving to high ground in a foreign land and never looking back. And that doesn’t make me a quitter, it makes me a self-preservationist.

You did an OK job, I guess, but it would have been better if you had a penis.

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

An article in Slate let’s Hillary know what she’s in for should she win: a nation of ungrateful fucks, regardless of how well she does.

As luck would have it, there’s new data out there about the shifts that take place when women run the world. Or at least a bunch of Indian villages.

Basically, in 1991 a law was passed stating that a certain percentage of randomly chosen Indian villages had to chose a female leader. This gave scientists a chance to study a culture’s reaction to vagina-governance. Nearly 20 years later, it turns out these girly-girl leaders spent most of their energy on projects to improve community as a whole; they are also generally less corrupt.

Duflo and Topalova found that communities with women as pradhans had larger quantities of key public services overall. Nor was quality sacrificed for quantity—facilities in the women-led villages were of at least as high quality on average as in the communities with traditional male leadership. The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)—with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps in the women-pradhan villages…They were also less corrupt—villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.

Ah, women, is there any way in which we’re not better? Of course, it doesn’t look like generations of complacent male leadership in these villages was setting a terribly high bar- “More Water, Less Bribery!” is not exactly an encouraging 21st century campaign slogan. So you’d think that the villagers are thrilled to have all these services and fewer people cockblocking them when they try to claim them, right?

Wrong.

Now, the bad news. India’s female pradhans were remarkably unappreciated for their efforts. Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services. This was true even for water—the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities.

The idea that women must suck at leadership is deeply ingrained into the patriarchy, which we share heaping helpings of with India:

How was Ms. Roizen perceived by students who read of her assertive style in the case? It depends whether she was presented as a man or as a woman. In an experiment on gender perceptions, psychologists Cameron Anderson and Francis Flynn gave one group of MBA students the original Heidi Roizen case for later in-class discussion, while the other half received a copy that was identical in every way, except that “Heidi” became “Howard.”…So the decisive, assertive traits that are often valued in leaders are received very differently when observed in women than when seen in men. Howard was a go-getter. Heidi was unlikably power-hungry.

I saw this exact situation play out in Cleveland, when Mike White was replaced by Jane Campbell. Mike had enjoyed three or four mayoral terms, despite Cleveland’s steady decline and his government’s notorious corruption. Jane had one term, the most exciting part of which was when her staff discovered that some members of White’s staff had been basically making up numbers for years, and we were in worse shape than we thought. She was largely blamed for this, and I remember all the papers as being very critical. She didn’t get a second term.

So good luck to Clinton, and I hope she doesn’t take it personally.

“I love my paintball gun.”

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

But he sure does hate the ladies:

It’s fun to observe Republican tadpoles in their natural habitat, isn’t it? It’s early, but all the signs of budding wingnuttery are there:

-Reeks of desperation? Check.
-And copious amounts of rejection? Check.
-Likes to play war games? Check.
-I mean, like, way too much likes to play war games? Check.
-Thinks he should have a womanslave to “face-fuck” at will who also worships his cock? Check.
-Thinks that openly hating women will somehow get him closer to having lips on his penis (which, from the sound of things, has happened only in his wet dreams)? Check a doodle doo.
-Wears Polo? Check.
-When not wearing Polo, most likely wears a frat party tee? Check.
-Probably kisses his parents’ asses while living on their money? Check.
-Will live an empty life of hypocrisy and self-loathing?

Almost certainly.

Someone please ask these men to shut the f*** up

Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

Life is good when I forget askmen.com exists. I sleep better, I smile more, I believe in a brighter future for our children.

But then they write an article on video games and it shoots to the top of the charts at n4g.com, my favorite aggregator of geeknews. You might be asking yourself, “why would an article from that shithole spark such interest from the gaming community?” And you probably don’t have to think too long before answering “boobs.”

Yep, AskMen.com tackled something completely refreshing — they rated the hotness of some women. In this case, they focused on what they’re calling the Top Ten Hottest Women in Tech. The article kicks off with one of the least coherent intros in paid-writing history:

While there used to be a social stigma attached to geekdom, nowadays it’s become fashionable to label oneself a nerd. While there are surely a cavalcade of factors behind this change, the rise of the internet has clearly played a substantial role in the nerd’s ascent.

The proliferation of scientifically minded women has proved instrumental in this shift, as the majority of contemporary tech pundits seem to belong to the fairer sex. Stranger still, many of these women possess the kind of looks one normally associates with supermodels and A-list actresses — which, admittedly, is a great way to capture the interest and attention of a garden-variety nerd. While there are certainly a number of drop-dead gorgeous ladies within the world of tech media to choose from, we’ve narrowed the list down to 10.

I confess I was delighted that the intro’s start was so eerily reminiscent of the “Since the dawn the dawn of time” openings we used to write in 4th grade. Was anyone else subjected to this diagram as a youth?

Clearly this guy was. But he didn’t seem to pick up much else, because the rest of those paragraphs came together like bleach and bowels.

First, the painfully obvious: the internet has played a role in the rise of geek-chic. GET. OUT.

Then, the absurd: that tech pundits are “scientifically-minded.” Kyso Kisaen is scientifically minded. Taking nothing away from the profession (I make a fantasy football show for pete’s sake), people who make TV shows about Grand Theft Auto have not necessarily proven their scientific credibility. After all, science is generally defined as:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

The askmen.com definition apparently means “reporting on the use of gadgetry.”

Then, the moronic: claiming that it’s “stranger still” that women who are attractive might also be intelligent… and feigning surprise that women selected to talk tech on television possess the afore-mentioned good looks. It’s almost like he doesn’t write for a website that tries to draw an audience by showing pictures of attractive women. You’d think he might have a clue why pretty girls are picked to be on TV. Oh wait, he does — he says it’s how you get “garden variety nerds” to pay attention. So why is it strange to him then? Argh.

The intro’s the highlight, but the 10 awkwardly phrased summations of why these women were picked give it a run for its money.

Speaking of #10 Wendy Cheng, a blogger who also writes for Maxim:

And Wendy’s brutal honesty on estrogen-centric topics, such as sex, dating and fashion, has made her an icon with the fairer sex.

Now, I could be missing something, but I believe this writer just described sex and dating as topics pertaining only to women (to say nothing of fashion). Even askmen.com editors *probably* should’ve caught that one.

On #9, G4 TV writer/personality Blair Butler:

Blair’s natural charisma and quick-thinking demeanor made her an ideal fit for on-camera work, and it wasn’t long before she started popping up in a number of X-Play’s recurring sketches.

Quick-thinking demeanor. How would that work, exactly?

#7 Amanda Congdon manages to dress herself well AND have a personality:

Amanda Congdon is one of the hottest women in tech because she possesses the sort of unattainable looks one associates with a supermodel, yet she’s certainly proven herself to be a far more complex figure than your regular clotheshorse.

Note: “tech” in this case means making a web show about driving across country in a hybrid.

The others are all just as inane, but in case you missed the entire point of his article, he drives it home in his final sentence on, um, “winner” Amber MacArthur:

At any rate, Amber can’t help but come off as that rare beauty who’s as smart as she is attractive.

Got that? You ladies need to stop trying to be all that and pick hot or smart, because the two almost never go together. And if they do, you deserve to be covered in askmen.com drool. Now, who’s up for a Ten Hottest Readers of PAB piece?