The Decline: The Geography of a Recession

This kinda grabs you. Less than ten seconds.

http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html

Sink your teeth into this one

The lastest special edition of Science reveals some interesting findings about an archeological find of what looks like the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. Looks like female power to mate with non-aggressive more cooperative  males may have resulted  in our becoming upright so we males could be more helpful carrying stuff   The article provides a better explanation. She is called Ardipethicus, or Ardi for short. Females began going for males that had duller teeth. Chimps tend to have sharper teeth to aid them in their battles for mates. It is interesting speculation.

It made me think some about the female attraction to vampires today. There is a huge market for vampire movies and books. Are females longing for the good old days when men used their teeth on each other to win a female’s favor? Worthy of note though is the fact that  these movie vampires don’t show their fangs all the time. That would be ugly and unattractive. But having flexible teeth that can get sharp and deadly at will, then dull and more human-like, that is the ultimate prize. Women could have it both ways.

Our teeth are very important to our social interaction, including attracting a mate. Imagine flirting without smiling. Imagine walking into a room and saying ‘hi’  but refusing to show your teeth at all. People think your pissed or depressed. We also spend millions in this country on medically unnecessary procedures for straightening of our teeth. As a society, we know how much is at stake when we open our mouth, even if we don’t say a word.  In contrast to humans, when a monkey shows its teeth, it often means it is angry and potentially dangerous. So teeth make a difference, as the excerpt from the Time article shows. Maybe they made all the difference in our evolution too.

Lovejoy thinks Ar. ramidus had a social system found in no other primates except humans. Among gorillas and chimps, males viciously fight other males for the attention of females. But among Ardipithecus, says Lovejoy, males may have abandoned such competition, opting instead to pair-bond with females and stay together in order to rear their offspring (though not necessarily monogamously or for life). The evidence of this harmonious existence comes from, of all things, Ardipithecus’ teeth: its canine teeth are relatively stubby compared with the sharp, dagger-like upper fangs that male chimps and gorillas use to do battle. “The male canine tooth,” says Lovejoy, “is no longer projecting or sharp. It’s no longer weaponry.” That suggests that females mated preferentially with smaller-fanged males. In order for females to have had so much power, Lovejoy argues, Ar. ramidus must have developed a social system in which males were cooperative. Males probably helped females, and their own offspring, by foraging for and sharing food, for example — a change in behavior that could help explain why bipedality arose. Carrying food is difficult in the woods, after all, if you can’t free up your forelimbs by walking erect.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1927200-1,00.html

72 yo Brit bangs up knife-wielding loud punk neighbor

I want more of these stories in the news.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196479/Pictured-The-battered-bruised-face-burglar-got-wrong-72-year-old-boxer.html?ITO=1490

How to be happiest with with your choices

There is research out there that shows that you are  more likely to like whatever you pick ( autos, therapists, spouses ) when you feel you were given a choice. Interestingly enough, you are also more likely to continue to like whatever you pick if your choice is irrevocable.

I guess this means that the ideal scenario is the free choice among all alternatives without the option of changing your mind once you’ve chosen.  Some kinds of freedom are more likely to lead to happiness than others. Freedom up front has more value in terms of happiness than freedom at the end.

   I think this knowledge has lots of applications, especially in child rearing.

An important warning

If the majority of Americans come to accept the caricatures of business (being crafted by liberal politicians) as true, then America is closer to the end of its life as a global leader, as a champion of markets and individualism.

 

From The Anchoress

Prepare to be more confused about female sexuality

The article in the link below shows that the more you learn about female sexuality, the more  you realize you don’t know.  

One pretty solid research finding is that female sexuality  is relatively  ’rudderless’, that is to say,  female physical sexual arousal is not linked to sexual desire  as strongly as it is with males. 

The most poignant example is the rape victim who experiences sexual arousal during a rape, but is subjectively repulsed at the same time. One researcher posits that the arousal is a survival mechanism designed to prevent vaginal injury, which could have often  resulted in fatal  infection or reduced fertility.  I guess involuntary sex was common enough that something like that needed to evolve in our species.  God help us.

Here is an excerpt from a sex researcher that was interesting . Do read the whole article though to get a better sense of how ignorant you are on this topic.  

Meana spoke about two elements that contribute to her thinking: first, a great deal of data showing that, as measured by the frequency of fantasy, masturbation and sexual activity, women have a lower sex drive than men, and second, research suggesting that within long-term relationships, women are more likely than men to lose interest in sex. Meana posits that it takes a greater jolt, a more significant stimulus, to switch on a woman’s libido than a man’s. And within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more importantly, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out.

Yet while Meana minimised the role of relationships in stoking desire, she didn’t dispense with the sexual relevance, for women, of being cared for and protected.

“What women want is a real dilemma,” she said. Earlier, she had shown me as a joke a photograph of two control panels: one representing the workings of male desire, the second, female; the first with only a simple on-off switch, the second with countless knobs. “Women want to be thrown up against a wall but not truly endangered,” she said. “Women want a caveman and caring. If I had to pick an actor who embodies all the qualities, all the contradictions, it would be Denzel Washington. He communicates that kind of power and that he is a good man.”

I can hear my wife now – ” OMG, I don’t think Denzel is cute at all.” 

Whatever.

Me neither.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5802819.ece

Fittingly,  The Macho Response ( see blogroll) pointed me to this article.

alphainventions

http://alphainventions.com

This blog helps get more hits to your site. It has worked for mine, and it is fun to watch random sites come up on it that you can check out.

Intellectual sophistication versus reality in the war on terror

 

 From http://frontpagemaganine.com .  The prevailing wisdom among many who voted for ‘change’ in November “…is to stop all these abuses, and terrorism will disappear. Yet history doesn’t support this view. Historically the greatest slaughterer of Muslims has been Russia, most recently in Chechnya, where by some estimates a 100,000 people were killed, torture and collective punishment freely employed, and the capital Grozny shelled into rubble. That’s how Russia solved its jihad problem. But that hasn’t kept Iran’s lunatic president Ahmadinejad from cheerily posing for the cameras alongside Vladimir Putin. But more important, you never hear criticism of Russia from most Muslim countries, for the simple reason that Russia doesn’t care what anyone thinks about its pursuit of its interests. Only we Westerners, so sensitive and guilty, are vulnerable to that sort of emotional blackmail.
This idea that criticizing your own culture and values is a sign of intellectual sophistication has many roots.

How does this intellectual sophistication play itself out? It provides a temporary increase in self-esteem that results in us taking our eye off the ball when it comes to threats and business opportunities. We ought to build business relationships with Muslim nations who are interested, tolerate those who are disinterested, and kill those who want to kill us. That’s as sophisticated as it needs to get. Russia supports Iran’s nuclear weapons because they want to make money with the Iranians in the nuclear industry.  Now Iranian leaders don’t want to kill Russians. They want to kill us. I bet they still want to kill Russians deep in their heart, but the fact that business interests trump inter-Moslem loyalty is a point worth consideration. We can strike business deals with Muslim nations that help us both. We can also keep a closer eye on them by doing so.  And if they try to harm us, we’ll have better intelligence to use to defend ourselves.

hat tip: http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com

Salary cap for ALL U.S. companies – yikes?!?!

From http://financialweek.com:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.
Mr. Frank seems to be in synch with the Obama administration in his plans for executive compensation.Treasury Secretary  Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.”

Not just companies getting bailout money folks, ALL U.S. companies may be subject to this government control.

Will professional athletes be next? 

After all, it just takes someone like Frank to cite “…deeply rooted American anger.” 

Watch out ARod.

Maya Angelou – pre and post Obama case study

Maya Angelou provides an interesting example of the different ways people allow themselves to think in the post  Obama era in contrast with the pre Obama era.

Let me start by sharing a classic Maya Angelou quote from an Oprah show:

“When people show you who they are the first time, BELIEVE them.”

Ok Maya, the FIRST time, you endorsed Hilary Clinton. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/01/28/obama_vs_clinton_and_now_toni.html

I  believe that reveals what you really think of Obama over your more recent praise of Obama.   

Back in the day,   Maya was able to just be an ordinary person with an opinion -  the pre-Obama period. Now she dare not fail to praise him in the post Obama period.  From the LA Times, Maya tries to explain her support for Obama.

Asked Smith: “Why this man?”

She replied:

Because he’s intelligent, Harry. I don’t mean intellectually clever. I mean intelligent. I mean what used to be called a mother wit. He has common sense, which is, I’m sorry to say, most uncommon. Because he knows that together….

…we can be somebody. You see?

What I see is a barely concealed longing for Hillary. ‘ Mother wit’ – really? You can credit Obama with whatever you want but attributing maternal wisdom to him is a stretch. For Maya Angelou, it stretches back to her pre Obama thinking. And the notion that ‘together we can be something’ is just vague enough to be capable of offering  a chance at  meaning to everyone and no one in particular.  Some of us, of course, will be ‘more together’ than others. Meanwhile, we are urged to be patient with Obama while HE tries to get it together. He says one day that he stands solidly behind Tim Daschle and within 24 hours says ‘he screwed up’.  Which is it? Who is this guy really?

Do we believe what he said ‘the first time’ about Daschle even though he had full knowledge of his deliquency on his taxes? That is  Maya’s rule after all, which happens to clarify  and focus my mind just enough to help me be not so surprised and bewildered by the ensuing  wild ride this guy will be taking us on.

But that’s just me. The rest of you can just be patient.  Like this guy. He wants you to give Obama a break.

iReport.com: ‘Give Obama a break’