The science of cuckoldry

I don’t mean to suggest that women are not biologically programmed to be ruthlessly deceptive cheating machines who only manage to surmount their programming by rigid self-control, religious dedication, or cliterectomies and the threat of stoning, but I think the scientistry on display in this video is less than entirely convincing. Seriously, what can reasonably be concluded from a woman who is self-consciously attempting to gyrate in front of a blue screen and an elderly German scientist armed with a camera? And there is a serious self-selection bias as well, given that the great majority of women who were not choosing to go out on the town were excluded from it. It hardly seems surprising that attached women who go out clubbing sans mate are more inclined to cheat than the average single woman… no doubt science will next tell us that recently divorced women are more readily available than the norm too.

Anyhow, it would be a rather more informative metric to combine the skin display percentage with observations of which women a) got physical with someone in public and b) left the club with a man rather than their friends. The observed connection between skin display and ovulation/attachment is potentially significant, but it’s incorrect to assume that skin display is necessarily tantamount to an increased interest in sex.

Perhaps it is a sign of the science fetish that pervades modern society, but the thing that too many men and women alike tend to forget is that we are not at the mercy of our biology. It can be a powerful influence, yes, of course. But the more we intellectually understand these various biomechanical influences, the more we can reduce their ability to dictate our behavior. Or, alternatively, make use of them to manipulate other people.

Courtesy: Biology Department, The Chateau

The Home of the Banks

It will be interesting to see how the White House and the Congress intervene to keep their masters in business and out of prison:

“The Massachusetts Supreme Court just dealt a negative ruling to the banks in the closely-followed Ibanez case, which challenged securitization standards. It’s pretty straightforward: The banks didn’t have the proper parwork to foreclose, says the court. Hence, no legitimate foreclosure.”

Oh oh. That’s exactly what I argued at the time.

If the details look like what this appears to be, the banks are totally ****ed on their securitized paper. This decision is from the State Supreme Court and thus is final within the State, and makes it likely that MBS holders will now sue en-masse for the sale of fraudulently-constituted securities (that is, there are no mortgages in the MBS they were sold!)

It’s perfectly clear that the mortgage banks and sellers of “mortgage-backed” securities that were not, in fact, backed by actual mortgages have committed the second-biggest financial fraud in American history. The amount of money that they have stolen from investors and the IRS absolutely dwarfs the amounts that are enough to imprison smaller fish for more than a decade.

Needless to say, it is highly unlikely that a single banker will ever do any prison time despite the fact that they are absolutely and provably guilty of massive criminal fraud and tax evasion because the USA is now an aristocracy with democratic trappings. The financial elite are, quite literally, above the law. If you steal $100 from a convenience store, there is no question that you will be punished much more severely than a banker who steals billions of dollars.

It is hard to escape the observation that America has become the Land of the Frauds and the Home of the Banks. But in the meantime, Zerohedge has more details on the Massachusetts bank-slapping.

“Plaintiffs’ claims that the Land Court’s ruling will cause widespread confusion or significant cost to innocent parties are greatly exaggerated, and such reasoning does not warrant ignoring the plain requirements of the law designed to protect Massachusetts consumers. Indeed, it is the foreclosing entities themselves who will bear the greatest cost of clearing titled from their invalid foreclosures. Having profited greatly from practices regarding the assignment and securitization of mortgages not grounded in the law, it is reasonable for them to bear the cost of failing to ensure that such practices conformed to Massachusetts law.”

Cue the Commerce Clause….

Disarm the police!

Clearly this is evidence that police guns are too dangerous to be permitted to the police:

Robert Butler Jr. walked into Millard South High School Wednesday just before 1 p.m. and signed in to speak to Assistant Principal Vicki Kaspar. It was his second visit to Kaspar’s office that day. The first hadn’t been a pleasant one, the 17-year-old senior slapped with a 19-day suspension for taking part in a Jan. 1 incident where a car was driven across a school football field and track at the school. But on this four-minute visit, Butler had a gun. It was a Glock .40, believed to be the service weapon of his father, an Omaha police officer. Butler shot the 58-year-old Kaspar, mortally wounding her, and then fired on Principal Curtis Case. He fired seven shots in all, the last a missed shot at a school custodian, before fleeing the school by car.

What do you want to bet that we don’t see the usual “guns must be banned” blather after this school shooting? The thing that is so stupid about gun control is that the decades of failure of the drug war make it perfectly apparent that all gun bans are going to do is create a very profitable illegal trade in them… and a lot of them are going to be purchased or stolen from the police and the military.

Perhaps you could try not being a wimp

I have zero sympathy for this loser:

Haywood was trying to transfer to the Yellow Line around 7:15 p.m. when the assault happened. He was headed home to Fort Totten after working out at Results on Capitol Hill, a gym bag slung over his shoulder and a book in his hands. As he read with his back to the station wall, “all of a sudden someone whacked me on the back of the head really hard,” he recalls.

Haywood turned around. The boy looked to be about 11 or 12 years old. Baffled, Haywood asked, “What the fuck are you doing?” The boy stood there laughing. Then someone else cracked Haywood from the other side. He turned around again. This time it was the girl in the video above. She didn’t stop swinging for more than a full minute, chasing Haywood around the platform as other kids egged her on.

As seen in the video, Haywood repeatedly asked the girl why she was attacking him, pleading with her to end it. “Stop it! Stop it! Goddamn it! You stop this shit right now! I did nothing to you!”

No wonder the nation is swirling down the drain. Little bastards like this wouldn’t be attacking strangers for kicks if they knew that they’d get their faces shattered in immediate response. Can you imagine Chuck Liddell or any MMA fighter begging a 12-year old boy or girl to stop hitting him? If you’re a man, you simply do not take that from anyone, let alone a child.