One of the most interesting parts of hanging out around the bonobo enclosure at the zoo all day long is listening to the public comment on the bonobos. You certainly learn a great deal about people's unexamined assumptions about being human by what they say about an animal that is remarkably human-like. Today, I learned people are bigots and have some pretty interesting ideas about men and women .

Incident  #1--Mchumba, a 9 year old female with quite a bit of energy and a tendency toward mischeviousness, was lying in a nice, shady part of the enclosure and scratching herself with apparent relish. Typically, when I say a bonobo was "scratching" herself, I mean a different itch but this time it really was just scratching. Think about the great satisfaction you derive from a great back scratching or running your hands through your hair and scratching your scalp a bit. Relaxed and enjoying herself. A woman approached the window and said (about Mchumba): "Where is his woman? She should be doing that for him." Among the many things that make this statement laughable, not 20 feet behind Mchumba sat Junior (a young adult male) grooming Ikela (adult female) for near 20 minutes.

Incident #2--This incident took place, again, during the Junior-Ikela grooming session. At the moment this incident occurred, Junior was grooming Ikela's face and lips with both his hands and his lips. Humans tend to call all lip-lip contact kissing. A woman with a rather loud voice walked up to the window and asked me several rather insipid questions, with a rather off-putting aggressiveness, and then said (with a hint of incredulousness in her voice): "Oh please, tell me that's a male and a female!"

This is my favorite one. So unexamined are her opinions, so unexamined her beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, she did not even pause to consider to whom she might possibly be speaking. The assumption being, of course, that her opinion is uncritically acceptable. The slight startle after she took a moment to look at me and the abrupt end to her line of incessant questions (none of which she actually appeared interested in hearing the actual answer to) suggests to me that realized to whom she was speaking and that perhaps the unexamined homophobia embedded in her comment came to, briefly, stand in relief. She has the luxury of walking through her life never experiencing a challenge to her very self based on her gender or sexuality. Would that we were all able to experience such luxuries.

The great thing about observing bonobos is that they actually challenge all of these assumptions. Not only the assumptions people make about other animals but also the assumptions people make about us. I like bonobos. I do not like people.

I got more work done on my sleeve the other day and the tattoo guy and I were talking about how many needles he uses for different kinds of lines or shading or whatever. Then we started thinking about how many times you get poked by a needle in the process of getting a tattoo. I sat for 3 hours during this session and he was using 9 needles since he was doing some pretty big coloring. This the breakdown:

9	needles
86	pokes/n/s
774	pokes/s
46,440	pokes/m
2,786,400	pokes/h
8,359,200	pokes/3h

That is a crazy lot of times getting a needle pushed through my skin. Mostly is was pretty okay but I have to tell you that the elbow bit? HOLY SHIT! That was an entirely new kind of unpleasant sensation. Good thing I only have 2 elbows. The most I will ever experience that particular unpleasant sensation will be twice. I can deal with that. As long as it is a few years until the next elbow. Which I think I will be. I was hoping to just keep barrelling on and finish my first sleeve in the next 6 months or so but Lea and I decided to take a vacation next summer. So, I have to stop getting tattoos so we can save for the vacation. That is okay. I can pick up the tattooing later and we stopped at a pretty good spot.

Stupid global warming. I live in SoCal. It is SoNot supposed to be this damn hot. I used to think that the heat of the midwest was the worst ever--high humidity + high temperatures = crappy weather. But this dry heat is pretty sucky. I got dehydrated for the first time in years recently and it was unpleasant. Plus, it is still hot at 10:08pm. And it is uncommon for older houses here to have AC because why would you have AC when the weather is always freaking great? Well, not today. Or all this week. Or, apparently, this weekend. Bastards.

Keep in mind that if I ever end up living in the midwest again, I will probably claim that heat is the worst, too. But I will so never complain about the winter. Love me some cold weather and snow. Plus, long underwear under everything? Funnest clothes ever. And insulated Dickies coveralls. Yes, sometimes me and my stereotypes are hand in hand. Whatever.

Well, after a full year of not doing any research I am officially doing some research now and I must say it is quite exciting. I go to the zoo every day and watch bonobos and write down what they do. This is an excellent way to spend time. I highly recommend it if you ever have the opportunity. It is particularly excellent because the bnoobos are fighting. I do not want to give the impression that I like conflict or that I want bonobos to fight but it is really hard to study conflict management in the absence of conflict. Nearly every morning for the past week there has been at least one conflict.

The conflicts are pretty interesting. They are all directed at (or at least involve) Mchumba, a 9 year-old female who has just started cycling in the last 6 months or so. Cycling means she is reaching sexual maturity. She has not yet had a sexual swelling that has reached full tumescence (really big, really pink, really juicy, likely fertile, quite saucy) but they are definitely getting there. This time it seems like she might have had her first cycle where she actually menstruates; it seems like there has been a little bit of blood on her swelling the last couple of days and Junior spent some time today poking in the swelling (that would be in between her very engorged vulva) and sniffing and tasting his finger. There was clearly something on it, too, that looked kind of dark and coagulated. Ikela was pretty interested in it yesterday and groomed Mchumba's swelling quite a bit yesterday and today.

Digression...The response of the public to grooming genitalia is pretty funny. They often think it is someone's butt and also have no idea how to tell females and males apart. Hint: Females have gigantic vulvas with protruding clitori, while males have gigantic testicles and a not all that protruding penis unless he has an erection...then it is hard to miss. Humans are one of the only mammals that do not have a baculum, or penis bone. The public often declare that bonobos should wear pants, put those things away, or use a toilet when excreting. I find this very odd. I think many people have a very difficult time dealing with our animal nature and seeing an animal so like ourselves is disconcerting in some ways. Why on earth would a bonobo wear pants? Or put that thing away? Where are they going to put it? It is particularly amusing when people realize that two females or two males are engaging in sexual activities. Or adults and juveniles. Or when they masturbate. Funny. Bonobos can totally masturbate with their feet. Lana spent quite a bit of time standing on both hands and one foot while rapidly stimulating her clitoris with her other foot yesterday. This was after engaging in sexual contact with Tutapende, who is 2. People kept saying she had an itch. Apparently one Tute couldn't scratch adequately...End digression.

So, in the wild female bonobos transfer from the group they were born into and join a new group when they reach sexual maturity. This is to avoid inbreeding. So, Mchumba is around the age that it would be expected that a female would start scoping out another group and receiving aggression within her own group until she fully transfers. But, of course, this is not an option in captivity so she is experiencing elevated aggression but cannot leave. It is interesting to see how she is coping with this.

Another thing that makes it so interesting is that Lana's tenure as the queen of the universe is, for the first time, being challenged by Ikela, another adult female. So there is a lot of jockeying going on. Plus, there are two orphaned infants who are definitely being used as social tools in the adults' political interaction. So, after conflicts directed at Mchumba, she is getting groomed by Ikela. A few months ago, every conflict in the group was Lana aggressing Mchumba. Now it's sometimes Junior or Ikela, too, but after exciting morning conflicts it's Ikela or Mchumba who get groomed more than Lana.

So, very productive data collection. And funny.

An article in the Times of London suggested that because of the growing value and accuracy of virtual models, animal experimentation in medicine may dramatically decline in the coming decades. I hope this is the case. The Brits have already outlawed testing on great apes and I think generally do much less of it than Americans but I hope this trend is global.

The trailer for the new V series on ABC this fall is online. It looks like the coolest thing ever! Morena Baccarin plays Anna the totally freaking crazy hot and scary leader. I loved the original miniseries and cannot wait for this. It looks like they are going to do a nice job. It is the same premise but it looks like they have tweaked the characters a bit, which is cool because I cannot imagine anyone but Faye Grant as Julie. Although it would have been cool to have her in it if it were V: 20 Years Later or whatever. Very happy about this.

ETA: Link to the trailer

Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Wichita, KS, was killed this morning on his way to church. He was shot in his kitchen in 1993 by an anti-abortion activist and he and his staff have been the targets of protests and threats for a long time. I remember going to protests against the protestors in Wichita several times in college and am a little stunned that this happened. His clinic has been at the center of the national debate about the rights of anti-abortion protestors to block access to clinics and harrass women seeking health care for decades and Dr. Tiller was a leader in ensuring women's access to safe, legal abortions in a state where Christian extremism is almost as ubiquitous as the sunflower or soybean fields. I usually find myself of the side of "the midwest is not all bad" when people find out I grew in Kansas City, MO and went to college at KU but the reality of this might have broken my rose-tinted glasses and knocked over my half-full glass.

I am confident that the murderer acted based on his anti-abortion beliefs (the police apparently have a suspect in custody) and this makes me wonder how he will be presented in the media. Will he be a terrorist? A Christian extremist? A mentally unstable loner? It will be interesting how this religiously motivated violence will be treated.

This is really upsetting. I never met Dr. Tiller but always admired him for not backing down in the face of threats and for believing that decisions about reproductive health should be made by women and their doctors, not religious fanatics. That is not to say that everyone opposed to abortion on religious principles is a fanatic, just those who think that their own religious beliefs should be applied to everyone. I would venture to say there are a great many people who are personally opposed to abortion but who do not support repealing Roe because they do not think they have the right to impose their religion on others. I think the president might be one of those people and that is okay with me. His comments about abortion seem to transcend the debate and engage it in a reasonable manner that do not cause him to violate his own beliefs but he also recognizes that not everyone shares them and that religious doctrine is insufficient justification for legislation in a non-theocratic state.

Well color me impressed. The Iowa supreme court yesterday, in a unanimous ruling, overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage by upholding an earlier, lower court ruling. Not only did they overturn the ban, they did so with no equivocation, clearly stating (this is from the Associated Press article):

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

Not only is this language emphatic support for marriage equality, the language they used in their decision is also highly significant legally. The justices overturned the ban under the equal protection clause of the Iowa State Constitution:

"In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court." (my emphasis, for the full text of the 69 page decision, go here)
 

In the past, queer rights issues have been decided on the basis of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution (namely the striking down of same-sex specific sodomy laws, which is the big one so far), which guarantees the right to due process (privacy) and the right to equal protection, but only under the due process clause, not equal protection. While this decision is based on a state constitution, I think it will set an important precedent. By the time marriage equality gets to the US Supreme Court, there will already be a state court which has found defining marriage as between a man and a woman to be a violation of equal protection, making it easier for the federal justices to do the same (or at least harder for them not to).

I hope that this decision also reminds the country that queers live everywhere, even the heartland, and that the midwest is often unfairly demonized in terms of progressive politics. Case in point, California, the great liberal state that passed prop 8, has a Republican governor (who, admittedly, often does not act like a Republican--but he is married to a Kennedy, after all), and regularly comes up with some of the most virulently anti-immigrant, English-only racist bullshit propositions that sometimes get passed. And we have a lot of Minutemen running around. Iowa (and Kansas, actually) both have strong progressive histories that sometimes get obscured by the nature of national political debates. I am not by any stretch attempting to claim that they are not also Bible belt states with serious right-wing conservative populations, too, but they are not just that. In fact, San Diego is considerably more conservative than the two midwestern places I spent most of my time. Kansas City, MO is a pretty liberal, metropolitan city that has, for as long as I have lived, always had a Democratic mayor and city council, has a strong, vibrant queer community, and, even though race relations have always been difficult, a strong and active civil rights community. Lawrence, KS is also a haven of liberal joy in the Bible Belt. Granted, that is largely because of the presence of KU but as UCSD students regularly remind me, universities are not by default liberal places and there are plenty of super-conservative fundamentalist Christians running around UCSD (I mean, seriously a whole lot). I think some of my students would be happy to live in an aristocracy with no voting rights for the middle class or lower. Lawrence was one of the first places in the country to add sexual orientation AND gender identity as protected statuses in the city charter.

Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, said that Mexico was unlucky to be right next to the US, the country with the world's highest demand for illegal drugs and easy to obtain weapons. I thought that was interesting since we tend to look at ourselves as pretty freaking awesome. Imagine, someone thinks we are bad neighbors.

(I heard the quote on NPR while I was in the car and cannot find it on the interweb...if I track it down soon, I will post a link to an article with the quote)

Seymour Hersh, the super-amazing investigative journalist, was on Fresh Air today talking about peace in the Middle East and Syria, Iran, and the US, as well as some nefarious Bush administration stuff. He mentioned one that I was completely unfamiliar with, Dick Cheney's kill squad. Apparently, Dick Cheney, the former vice president (an office that has no command authority over the military), had a sweet, off the books deal going with the Joint Special Operations Command (http://www.socom.mil/#) in which he was the only approval required for the assassination of high level targets around the world. Congress is actually supposed to be involved in those decisions, particularly the Defense Sub-Committee, which has like 4 people on it so they are the most top secret committee in the legislative branch.

I really like the idea of congressional oversight of the executive branch and missed it a great deal during the Bush years. I hope Obama brings it back. Hersh has a new book coming out soon about this but more can be found at these fine places:

The Raw Story 
Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross (mostly about Syria but very interesting and mentions the kill squad)
What the Defense Department has to say
Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker

I am not so naive as to believe that our government does not kill people in a secretive and rather scary manner but I think that some oversight is probably a good idea. The whole idea of assassination does not sit well with me but I will probably have to think about this issue more. Is it better to send one highly trained soldier or CIA agent to kill some really scary guy up close and personal than a guided missile that takes out innocent civilians? I think maybe so. I mean, avoiding killing people is way preferable but given that it is going to occur, which is better? But then we have to ask who makes the decision about who is an important enough scary guy. Apparently Dick Cheney. No matter what conclusion I come to, whether these things are ever justifiable or not, I am definitely sure Dick Cheney should not be making the decision. He is a scary guy.

Today, in her first trip to Mexico as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did something that Americans never do. Something that members of our government never do. She admitted that American demand for illegal drugs is what drives the drug trade:

"We have accepted that this is a co-responsibility," she said. "We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States, that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States to Mexico, and therefore we see this as a responsibility to assist the Mexican government and people in defeating an enemy that is committing violence and disruption that is very harmful."

Now, as anyone who has ever taken an economics course knows, if the people want something, someone will find a way to produce it. How is it that in every other facet of the economy our government seems to get this, yet with the drug trade, we blame the suppliers? We use the military to execute police actions through Latin America, Afghanistan, and other major drug producing countries, spraying toxic pesticides over agricultural land that poisons subsistence crops and ground water, as well as some drug crops. Who recovers from that faster--drug suppliers or independent farmers? We spend billions more on the war on drugs in other countries without taking serious steps to curb demand.

Sure, we spend a lot of money on police actions in this country that are aimed at poor and minority communities, criminalizing drugs and filling prisons with small time users and low level street dealers that are essentially replaced within a few hours. But hasn't anyone noticed that that has not yet worked? If people want it, someone will sell it. In order to stop the drug trade, we need to stop the demand for drugs. I generally think some drugs ought to just be legalized so they can be heavily regulated and that instead of criminalizing drug use, we should approach it as a public health issue. No US policy has started to get to the heart of demand for drugs, approaching it as a public health crisis, and until it does, I think we are just throwing money away, building more resentment against the US, and certainly not helping anyone kick a habit.

So, I am glad that Clinton admitted American culpability (complicity?) in the global drug trade. And she mentioned the guns. Lots of guns go over that border. I don't even want to get started on the violence. 843 people were killed in drug-related violence in Tijuana last year, over 5300 across Mexico. There has been a drug war waging just 30 minutes south of here for the last year. One of our neighbors moved up here a while ago to escape the violence. Their 13-year-old son was almost kidnapped (which happens all the time) so they dropped everything and were out of TJ in a few hours. So, I am really glad that the Obama administration is being straightforward about this. Hopefully, it will amount to more than just an awesome soundbite.

Okay, the "enemy" language bothered me a little. But I think that is just the rhetoric of our age.

It is 2am and I am still up grading Phaedo papers. I am far too old to be up this late on a school night.

Stolen from sl_podcast :

Rules:
* Grab the book nearest you (the NEAREST, not your favorite book, the coolest, or the most intellectual).
* Turn to page 56.
* Find the fifth full sentence.
* Post that sentence along with these instructions in your LJ.

"This, I do assure you, is what my god commands; and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city than my service to my god; for I spend all my time going about trying to peruade you, young and old, to make your first and chief concern not for your bodies or for your possessions, but for the highest welfare of your souls, proclaiming as I go, 'Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the State.'"

I am not sure if I am supposed to post the name of the book. Any guesses?

From this week's Scientific American weekly review:

• Pound for pound, beef production generates greenhouse gases that contribute more than 13 times as much to global warming as do the gases emitted from producing chicken. For potatoes, the multiplier is 57.
• Beef consumption is rising rapidly, both as population increases and as people eat more meat.
• Producing the annual beef diet of the average American emits as much greenhouse gas as a car driven more than 1,800 miles.

For the rest of the article, go here.

These data came out a few months ago when the UNFAO report was first published but SciAm does a nice job summarizing it. I think it is pretty cool that they compare the environmental costs of beef to other meats, as well as vegetables (okay, they only mention Peruvian grown asparagus). For people who do not think much about the animal cruelty issues associated with factory farming, I think this is probably a pretty good argument for being a vegetarian in the industrialized world or at least making a concerted effort to learn where your food comes from and how it gets to you. I think it is pretty interesting how global economic and political inequalities are manifest in virtually everything we do from the cars we drive to the food we eat.

I originally became a vegetarian when I was 12 after raising some orphaned chicks and realizing I did not feel comfortable eating my friends and realized that if they could become my friends, any chickens probably could, too. While that rather simplistic view remains the core of why I am a vegetarian, ecological and geo-political reasons have gotten added on top since then. The global meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than private car driving. That is a pretty big piece of knowledge.

Birds of Prey #126--Guest Starring none other than...

( Click here for all the exciting details! )

I have recently begun listening to the International Spy Museum's Spycast (spy + podcast) and it is awesome. I am a very big fan of espionage in the Land of Make Believe, although I have always been rather wary of espionage in the Land of America the Imperialist Power. This podcast has made me rethink some of my assumptions about the nature of the CIA. I believe I can no longer think about it as pure evil and a branch of the US government that only does evil things.

I love spy shows (Alias, for example) and the idea of spies but the reality has always rubbed my card-carrying Democratic Socialist self the wrong way. But it turns out that these folks are really articulate, well-educated people who actually had an idea about what would happen in Iraq if the US invaded, who knew that Saddam had nothing to do with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and who think that torture is stupid.

Peter Earnest, the host, is a former CIA officer and does a great job with the interviews. He interviewed people involved with the Iran hostage crisis, Cold War defections from the USSR, several Middle Eastern specialists, Valerie Plame (that was awesome), and Masters of Disguise and the tech people. The disguise and tech interviews were really neat. Shoe phones! Oh, that was Get Smart!

He did an interview with a guy who was the CIA's top polygraph guy about why it is an art and a science. Many of the interviews have been with women involved with the CIA and how women's roles have changed and how women are just as good at being spies, or better, than men. I still certainly have issues with American intelligence, of course, but I think I have to take a more nuanced and comlex view that recognizes some of these folks are really doing the right thing. Weird. They all talk about service and patriotism are clearly dedicated to serving as patriots. I have to re-think what these terms mean. Anything that makes me think twice about assumptions I make is tops in my book. Not that I am all YAY about it but it has definitely problematized things for me. I thought I was over "problematized", stupid grad school.

If you are interested in spy things, even just in a science fiction/Jennifer Garner rocks way, I recommend this podcast. Very exciting and interesting opinions about major international events. Stalin's daughter defected! Through India! Good interview. I would like to go to the Spy Museum.

I am in the midst of the best week ever that promises to give way to the best subsequent period of time of indeterminate length ever. I got a little off track in the fall, enjoying myself but not fully realizing the awesomeness potential of my existence. As some may know and others not, I was planning to begin my dissertation research in the fall, spending my days at the Wild Animal Park watching bonobos and writing down what they did. This activity was nipped in the proverbial bud by the Species Survival Plan. Now, as a primatologist and ardent supporter of conservation of bonobos and maintaining healthy gene pools, I cannot really express profound displeasure at the moving around of the bonobos.  Half of the group moved to Jacksonville, FL in October and the other half will be moved to Kyoto (I think) next fall. Four bonobos are just not enough bonobos to watch. So, my dissertation research got paused. But really, what is another year of graduate school? Seven years, eight years, twelve years? Who cares. I am just as okay with an eight year graduate career as I was with seven. So, in the fall I spent my time teaching, training bonobo interns, and...well, I apparently did other stuff, too. Now, since I am not going to be able to do research for some time, at least not concentrated-like, I have returned to my regular life.

In the fall I taught two classes at a community college because the schedule would have allowed me to spend most of my time at the park with the bonobos doing research without giving up gainful employment. So I was not on campus at UCSD much and I also did not have an opportunity to TA in MMW, the program I have worked in for 4 years. This meant that I did not do any of the things I usually did. Anyone who has attended school, which is pretty much most folks, knows that the pattern of school fall through spring, summers off, start again, is something that becomes a deeply ingrained way of life. Add to that the fact that I have been in school near continuously (save for a semester or year here and there when I dropped out or was finding myself) for 26 years and that I am a person who relies heavily on predictability and likes my life to be organized (some might call this obsessive compulsive or anal), and you may have some understanding of what a break in my routine does. In fact, I am so wedded to my routine that even when I have a day off and do not need to be up early in the morning, I still like to get up by 7 or 7:30. Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, whatever--Iike getting up early. This is, of course, heavily influenced by the 45-pound Australian shepherd-border collie-beagle-spaniel who is also wedded to her routine and would like her walk at around the same time every morning, thank you very much, and is rather persistent in reminding me of this. In a really adorable kind of way. Back to the break in routine...

Not TAing in MMW, not sitting at my desk in the office, not seeing any of my school friends (which would have been challenging, anyway, since one was in Iceland, one was in Israel, and the other one now works in another office on campus and sometimes is not in the hallway), and not going to the coffee cart profoundly affected the way I did things. I was still happy and thoroughly enjoyed my teaching, as well as the opportunity to work at home more, but it was strange. Now? All is right with the universe again. Minor caveat: dissertation being on hold is a little challenging emotionally but the decision not to freak out has made a big difference. Plus, financially speaking, this works out well. I can spend this time earning and saving since my teaching load is gigantic right now, and I can focus on applying for grants without trying to do research at the same time. Not that I expect to get any of them (NSF already came back in the negatory) but whatever. Universe=way it ought to be.

So, I am back in MMW. I love MMW. It is a ton of work, eats up tons of my time (and would eat small pieces of my soul if I believed in such things as souls), and I am teaching 3 sections instead of the usual 2 which just means everything is extra. I am also teaching for a new professor. He is not new in the sense of having recently become a professor or joined MMW, he is simply new to me. For the last 3 years I have TA'd for the same professor for MMW2, including 2 summers, so this is an entirely new experience. But, this new professor? Totally awesome and hilarious. He is a really great lecturer, very funny and dynamic. Last night I had my first sections where we actually went over course material and they were wonderful. My students were so involved and engaged. They asked questions, shouted out answers, and really seemed to be getting into. Teaching three classes in a row is pretty challenging and takes a lot of energy but I felt so great when we finished. Plus, we were talking about the Babylonian Epic of Creation which is one of my favorite stories and I love the way they read the creation stories in Genesis after having read it. So, MMW? Excellent.

I also get to sit in the office and work. Or at least pretend to work while chatting with everyone, which is way better. Plus we had tacos for dinner last night.

This is a list of the top ten (in no particular order) reasons Joss Whedon is an Evil Bastard Man.
( Cut for spoilers for everything Joss Whedon has done... )

I have no idea how Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield do it. Every week they turn out the best show on the radio. Their critical analysis of how the media bring us information is brought to us with humor, intelligence, a strong sense of balance, and this week? SONG. Not only did this week's episode have a great story about the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society but they also reported the results of, apparently, over 200 studies on media influence on children in a song. The more media (media here is inclusive of all media--TV, movies, radio, video games, the interweb) children are exposed to the more likely they are to get bad grades, be obese, and engage in sexual activity at an early age. I have always loved listening to both of them on the radio, not just because I enjoy the content of their show but because I enjoy listening to their voices. Who knew they could belt out a catchy tune, too? If you do not listen to them on a regular basis, you should. If you are not going to, you should at least listen to the song. Brilliant.

Go watch this video now.

Prop 8 Musical

Funniest.Thing.Ever. I love musicals and Neil Patrick Harris. And Margaret Cho. And Allison Janey. And John C. Riley. And all of those other people whose names I am not putting here.