Wisdom of the Capybara

Curing headaches is reason 173 of 237 ‘whys’ of why we humans mate…What else constitutes ‘the most thorough taxanomy of sexual motivation ever compiled?’  Check out John Tierney’s  New York Times artcle, “The Whys of Mating.”

The four general categories are:

“¶Physical: “The person had beautiful eyes” or “a desirable body,” or “was good kisser” or “too physically attractive to resist.” Or “I wanted to achieve an orgasm.”

¶Goal Attainment: “I wanted to even the score with a cheating partner” or “break up a rival’s relationship” or “make money” or “be popular.” Or “because of a bet.”

¶Emotional: “I wanted to communicate at a deeper level” or “lift my partner’s spirits” or “say ‘Thank you.’ ” Or just because “the person was intelligent.”

¶Insecurity: “I felt like it was my duty” or “I wanted to boost my self-esteem” or “It was the only way my partner would spend time with me.”

The most cited reason to mate was, of course, physical attraction…Other reasons range from ‘burning calories’  to ‘change the topic of conversation’ (hmm)…I’d admit to the former, but don’t quite see how one can converse with all that humping…

Also, ‘research’ now confirms that men seem to be more prone to use their dicks to get what they want: a raise, a promotion etc, while women mate because they love the person…I think this finding just shows that men are simply more honest…

On Sunday, Prime Minister Abe Shinzo lost a great deal of support in elections across Japan and pulled a very Bush-esque move when he defied tradition and explained that despite no longer being in the majority, he would remain in office because voters really support his policies deep down in their hearts.  To my mind, saying that the voting record doesn’t reflect voter’s true feelings is a dangerous move.  Abe’s rationalization was that the current uproar against his administration is fueled more by momentary feelings that will disappear as time moves on.

In my opinion, one of the things that makes democracies so condusive to being at peace with each other is the fickleness of the mob.  I think it is the very fact that when momentary feelings cause an adminstration to lose support, the administration is changed.  In general, it seems that whenever a country pursues a grand nationalistic project, wherein the fickleness of the mob is repressed, bad things happen and a lot more harm than good takes place.

What’s more, when politicians decide that the national opinion shouldn’t dictate their actions, they create a divide between the government and the people making it possible for foreign powers to play successful rhetorical games.

With Abe embattled in negative public opinion, the US seized the opportunity to pass a non-binding resolution calling for Japan to accept responsibility for the use of “comfort women” during World War II .

We had a small debate several months ago about whether the US should become involved in this debate in which I argued that the timing was off and as such the US should stay out of it.  At this juncture, however, I tend to agree that passing this resolution is a good idea. Especially in light of the recent US Cold War disclosures.

I think the interesting thing is that when government is split from the people, either by the strong will of leaders like Prime Minister Abe or President Bush, or by sectarian violence in case of Iraq, the words of foreign powers suddenly become more powerful.  Terrorists come to have the rhetorical power to manipulate America and Iraq to their will, America comes to have the rhetorical power to manipulate Japan to its will.  (For my thoughts on this, check out the following thread)
Whether the rhetorical manipulation aims at an ignoble goal or a noble one, it seems clear to me that attempting to repress the fickleness of the mob, far from strengthening a country, leaves it far more vulnerable to outside forces.

As an avid fan of picking apart movies, I have always wondered: what happens when a crowd fires guns into the air in celebration.  The bullets go up and then, don’t they come down again?

The answer apparently is yes.

 Yesterday, the Iraqi soccer team won the Asia Cup after taking the lead in the final game 1-0 against Saudi Arabia.  Spirits were high as the whistle sounded and I was ecstatic.  Nothing like a major soccer victory to pull a country together and help it transcend its problems.  I went to bed full of anticipation and when I checked the news to see what the Iraqi national reaction would be, I found out that, sadly, people do die due to celebratory gunfire.

In Iraq, there were at least four people killed and many more were wounded by celebratory gunfire.  That there was celebratory gunfire at all highlights once again the delicate situation of the Iraqi national psychology in the face of daily violence.  Were four people to be killed, or even one person, for that matter, in celabratory gunfire within the US, the soccer victory would have been entirely overshadowed.

In Iraq, quite to the contrary, a low body count for the night brings a sigh of relief, especially after the terrorist bombing of the celabratory party of Iraq’s victory last week over South Korea. 

While perhaps not the light at the end of the tunnel for Iraq, its still great that they won.

First a sidenote: You should really check out the YouTube CNN democratic debates. Yeah, CNN screened the questions, but they are still a lot more interesting and touchy than the ones the mainstream media has been coming up with. I really think this is a very positive trend for our democracy. I hear the Republicans have one in September.

So what are your voting issues? A lot of people try to pretend that all the issues are important, but that’s pretty much BS. Almost no one agrees with any given candidate 100%, and most people disagree one several issues very strongly. Therefore, whether implicitly or explicitly, everyone prioritizes what they care about. (Or in some cases they throw away their vote by casting it for someone from a party that has no shot at winning, and thus succeed in compromising fewer of their values – congratulations, now Bush is president.)

Let’s play. Briefly list your three top issues for the 2008 election, along with a short explanation. Here are mine:

1. Gay rights. This is first partly because I find it appalling that even the most liberal candidates among the Dems find it politically infeasible to openly support gay marriage. That is rather sad. I really think our children will look back on this issue 50 years from now and be as incredulous as we are that our parents put up with the level of racial bigotry before the ’60s. That said, I really liked Obama’s response on this issue in those debates I linked to.

2. Education. We are the richest country in the world and the system sucks. I am not particularly educated (heh) on this issue, so I don’t have a strong opinion on how to improve the system, but I am looking for someone who recognizes the problem for the existential threat that it is.

3. The War on Terror (or the “Long War” now). I don’t really disagree with the Bush administration that Islamic extremism is going to be the chief foreign policy challenge for the immediately foreseeable future. It is exactly that reason that I think it is so important to elect a leader that will approach such a complex issue with a modicum of sophistication and intelligence. To be more specific, I am looking for a candidate that doesn’t prattle on about “us and them” and bandy about locker room slogans, but I am also wary of candidates on the other side that think we can just withdraw into an isolationist shell and the problem will just go away.

Naturally there are lots of other issues that are extremely important to me, and I of course reserve the right (and almost certainly will) change some of these opinions at a moment’s notice, and may well based on the comments to this thread (assuming there are any).

Here is an interesting piece from columnist, Charles Krauthammer, but it isn’t his ideas that I think are bad ones. It is what he is commenting on that triggers my bad idea. He is commenting on an emerging new strategy in Iraq, which seems like a set up for disaster. By way of introduction:

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have engaged us in a far-reaching and fundamental political shift. Call it the 20 percent solution.

So what is the 20 percent solution?

[The Sunnis, 20 percent of the population, will] join our fight against al-Qaeda, and we give them weaponry and military support. With that, they can rid themselves of the al-Qaeda cancer now. And later, when the Americans inevitably leave, they’ll be better positioned to defend themselves against the 80 percent Shiite-Kurd majority they are beginning to realize they may have unwisely taken on.

Well, that is a strange twist on the whole idea of divide and conquer. We will abandon our current allies who are ineffective in fighting our current enemies, join with our current enemies who are effective in fighting our current allies, use their effective fighting skills to wipe out a group we empowered when we invaded Iraq and then pull out, leaving behind us a heavily armed minority group who will, of course, only use their weaponry to bolster their diplomatic position.

For an interminable 18 months we waited for the 80 percent solution — for Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-Kurdish coalition to reach out to the Sunnis. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is the 20 percent solution: peel the Sunnis away from the insurgency by giving them the security and weaponry to fight the new common enemy: __________________

Go ahead and fill in that blank for yourself.  At this moment, that blank might indeed be filled in with Al-Quada, true.  But what will happen the moment American forces pull out Iraq?  Who will fill in the blank then?  To me it seems like a set up for genocide.

Of course, on the other hand, some people seem to think genocide is currently the likely outcome. Barak Obama has this to say:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

The goal of our new strategy is not to prevent a potential genocide, but rather to wipe out al-Qaida in Iraq before we leave, even if doing so provides weaponry to a group in position that carries the risk of genocide. 

Which is worse, heightening the risk of a terrorist attack within the US or fueling a situation that already carries the risk of potential genocide?

Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, has been inaugurated for a second, seven-year term… Al-Assad won his second term in a referendum in May, in which he secured 97 per cent as the sole candidate. His critics dismissed the poll as a sham.

I find it so interesting that democratic ideals have become so pervasive all over the globe that even most dictators have to go by boring titles like “president” and pretend to hold elections.

Here’s a free tip for dictators: When you fake elections, choose a more believable statistic, like say, 78%. You still win, and you might just make international analysts look at the data twice before they pronounce your election a sham. Or if you are really lucky, they might predicate it with something like “although Syria is applauded for its steps toward democracy, the USG still looks forward to further progress in the following key areas.”

But why bother with all that crap? Especially if you’re already part of the Axis of Evil, you may as well get yourself a cool title. Here are some more free suggestions for Al-Assad, the next time he or his advisors are frequenting this blog:

• Sultan of the Undying Sun
• God-king of the East
• Pharaoh of the Eternal Kingdom
• Imperator of the Faithful, Scourge of the Unfaithful

So I would say he has options. It would certainly make things less boring, and he could come up with all sorts of elaborate rituals when he meets with other head of state.

“Sorry sir, the Great Khan only meets with people doing headstands… it’s a custom mandated by the ancients.”

I couldn’t find any videos of a Ratel going after anyone or anything’s scrotum, but here is the next best thing. Watch this badass rip up a cobra!

The war in Iraq continues:

Word spread among the populace that UK troops had introduced strange man-eating, bear-like beasts into the area to sow panic.

But several of the creatures, caught and killed by local farmers, have been identified by experts as honey badgers.

UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: “We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.”

Man-eating badgers? This seemed odd, so I wiki-ed it, and it turns out the badgers they are referring to aren’t the cute North American ones we are used to (seeing occasional pictures of). Rather, it is the Ratel, a crazy take-no-shit-from-anybody badger from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

Its ferocious reputation extends to attacks on animals much larger than itself. Several African tribes report that the honey badger attacks the scrotum of larger mammals if provoked and has even castrated humans.

Jeez, no wonder the Iraqis are scared. This guy makes Sunflash the Mace look like a pussy. I think the Ratel (aka honey badger, which doesn’t sound as cool) might just be my new favorite animal. (After the Capybara, of course. It is a little known fact that, when properly trained, capybaras are a force to be reckoned with.)

One more picture of badassedness incarnate:

“Bring it punk, make my day”

Sorry about the title, I’m sure it’s been done a million times, but I couldn’t help it.

I don’t know much about health, and I haven’t seen Sicko, so I won’t comment on the merits of either side’s argument.

But holy shit! This clip is certainly worth the time if you have it. This video is really long (like 15 min), but I have never seen an interview with Moore except on the Daily Show, where Stewart was just blowing sunshine up his ass.

What the heck is Moore thinking in that interview? By acting like a schoolgirl who got dissed rather than as a rational adult, he is ensuring that people don’t take some of the his legitimate points seriously. (I certainly fall into that category.)

My main problem with people like Moore is that their messages basically amount to propaganda. My definition of propaganda is something that appeals to people’s irrational side (usually fear) rather than making logical arguments. I certainly understand why some individuals and groups find it an effective means to an end, but that doesn’t make me any less irritated when it is directed at me, and that is why I’m not a big fan of Michael Moore movies.

However, until I saw this interview, I figured Moore was capable of making a rational argument, he just elects to appeal to people’s emotions through his films to get his point across. Now I am less sure. In the clip above, rather than just refuting Sanjay Gupta’s points (assuming he can refute them), he just sputters, bitches, whines, and all around makes an ass of himself.

I love it when Moore says this: “You can see why they generally don’t like to put me on live, because a lot of that would have been cut out.” Yeah, no shit… and it just might not be a conspiracy by the mainstream media to keep you down, it could be because you act like a dick.

Jeez, you can’t take this guy anywhere these days.

One of the most harmful pieces of residual baggage left over from the Cold War is that policymakers are still loathe to talk about inequality. After all, boiled down idiotic simplicity, capitalism is all about growth and socialism is all about equality. But now the Cold War is over, and it’s time for economists and policymakers to once recognize inequality for the social ill that it is. Communism failed; it’s time for market economics to take a swing at this problem. (Fortunately, this is already happening, at least to some degree.)

This post over at Econlog got me thinking:

Fifty years ago, a college-educated male was much more likely to meet and to marry a female with average or below-average cognitive ability than is the case today. Stratified marriages will produce stratified children. As cognitive skills become increasingly important determinants of wealth, we may see a reduction in intergenerational mobility across income classes.

I had never really considered social inequality as a biological challenge, only as a economic one. But according to the research cited above, not only is wealth stratified, but the inherent biological ability to succeed (intelligence, dexterity, charisma, etc.) may be increasingly segmented as well. Now there’s a touchy issue to approach.

On the other hand, the notion that suddenly this trend is happening in America over the past 50 years surprises me and seems a bit odd. In theory, throughout history wouldn’t people of greater ability have risen to the top, and then sought out mates of similar quality? But were that the case, we would expect biological disparity to be much greater than it actually is, and we wouldn’t expect to see genetic diseases riddling noble lineages. (Though we might chalk the latter up to inbreeding – choosing mates similar to yourself backfiring; it seems nature has a solution to everything.)

And so it remains a riddle for the time being…