Then What Was It?

DISCLAIMER (Or maybe it's a WARNING. I'm not sure what to call this. But whatever it is, just know that you've been informed.): Today's post is going to be kind of short. And that's pretty much a coincidence when you compare it to how the rest of the week is probably going to be. The posts for at least the next eight days are going to be kind of short. I don't think that what I am embarking upon what can be considered a "vacation", but it does involve a lot of traveling, a hell of a lot of driving and at least three different states. It will also involve seeing a whole lot of people that I haven't seen in years and that's going to be quite fun. But don't worry! I'm not going to forget about you, my loyal patrons. My posts might be short and they might even be a little late on some days, but they will be there. I promise. Now that you've been sufficiently warned and informed, what say you tell me if you can explain something to me.

What we have here is a young woman who was found dead at a mansion in Coronado, California. According to 10news.com, "Autopsy results and evidence gathered...will not be available to the public as the investigation continues". OK, I get that. That seems reasonable. Here's the part I'm having trouble with: See, "The woman found dead at a Coronado mansion on Wednesday was discovered naked with her hands and feet bound hanging from a balcony off the main house by a rope around her neck". Yipes. Horrible, right? Absolutely. No doubt about that. That's not my question. My question comes after learning that "...authorities are not prepared to call her death a homicide." Because seriously? What else are you going to call it?!

The chick is totally naked with both her hands and feet bound by "...what appeared to be an orange electrical cord". And she's hanging off of a balcony with a rope tied around her neck? But they're not just quite ready to jump to the crazy conclusion that it was a homicide?! What the hell else would it have been? (If she offed herself, that's one hell of an impressive suicide. She should get some sort of posthumous medal or plaque or something for that.) I can't possibly imagine. But the Sheriff's Captain, a one Tim Curran, said that the woman died "violently" and "I'm not really prepared to comment on what led us to believe that, but the scene does indicate some type of very suspicious circumstances." Huh??

Look, I wasn't there or anything. I wasn't present when a search warrant was executed. I'm not a cop and don't even play one on TV. But come on! Do they really need more than a woman with all of her limbs bound with an electrical cord and a noose around her neck hanging off of a balcony to indicate some type of "very suspicious circumstances"?! I'll comment on what led them to believe that, and it's what I just said! If that situation isn't suspicious then I don't know what in the world would be suspicious.

I really hope that they can get to the bottom of this, but with the sort of logic that has already been demonstrated, forgive me if I don't hold my breath, OK? Seriously, what else could it possibly be? I'm open to suggestions.

moreless

Thank You, Captain Obvious

Where do I sign up to get a job that studies the completely obvious? I know that such jobs exist. In fact, I'm positive of it after reading in Psychology Today that a one Nicolas Guéguen did a study "...on the likelihood of a female hitchhiker being picked up, by either a male or female driver, as a function of her breast size." Sooooo...let me get this straight. He wanted to know if a hitchhiking woman had larger breasts, would it increase the chances that she would be offered a ride? Really? There needs to be a study for this? Can't we all just agree on some things without the study?

The author of the article at Psychology Today is a one Gad Saad (pronounce that however you'd like). Mr. Saad muses about Mr. Guéguen that he "...could not help but notice that he possesses a talent for conducting naturalistic experiments about issues that many people have wondered about and yet few (if any) have tested." Really? Do you really think that many people have wondered whether or not chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Or do you think that many people already know that chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Can't we just agree that some things don't need to be proven, that they're just intrinsically known and we're all good with that?

The guy, Mr. Guéguen actually did a little test where "...an average looking female confederate" with either A cup, B cup or C cup sized breasticles "...stood at the side of a road and actually hitch hiked (i.e., put out her thumb as cars whizzed by)". Someone counted how many guys and how many girls drove by and also counted how many guys and how many girls stopped to pick this chick up. (They make of point of telling us that the "female confederate" did not actually get in any of the cars. I wish that would have made a point of telling us why she is called the "female confederate" instead.)

Now, this may shock you to learn that more men stopped to pick up the chick with bigger breasts. This is summarized in Mr. Saad's article as "If a woman has large breasts, men are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior." You think?! Are you freaking kidding me? How about next time, instead of sending some chick out on the side of the road and having her thumb rides, what say you just ask guys what they would do? "Excuse me, sir? If you saw this woman hitchhiking (show picture of voluptuous female, preferably Pam Anderson because, well, who doesn't like Pam Anderson?), would you give her a ride?" Then give the man a tissue to wipe the drool coming out of his mouth. Repeat as needed. (I realize that "as needed" makes it sound as if it is necessary to ask someone else to see if this is, in fact, an actual phenomenon. You and I both know that it's not. You and I both think that this study was about as stupid as it can get in the first place. Then again, some guy managed to figure out how to study how women's breasts cause different reactions in society. OK, that guy might be a genius, but this study certainly is not.)

And just in case you were wondering, here is the picture that Psychology Today included along with their article. You know, just in case you were unfamiliar with the concept of a fairly attractive, large breasted woman. Behold!

Good Lord....

moreless

Yeah, We Know

I have a question. When celebrities or people who are famous or well-known come out and say that they're gay, who is that for? Seriously. Who is that for? It can't be for regular people. It can't even be for irregular people. So who is it for and what's the point?

I ask the above questions because Ricky Martin has come out and said he's gay. (And in a related story, the sun is really, really hot. Back to you.) OK, he didn't use that terminology, exactly. No, what he said (on his blog of all things!) was that “I am proud to say that I am a fortunate homosexual man. I am very blessed to be who I am.” All right then. It kind of had that feel of former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy's admission that he was "proud to be a gay American". (I mean that in the sense that the words kind of had the same sort of sound to them. Not that Ricky Martin was governing an eastern state and had been married to a woman when he had an affair with an Israeli national or anything.)

But here's the thing: Ricky Martin says "I'm gay" and everyone else says "We know". Have you seen Ricky Martin? Ever? Yeah, um, he's gay. So who is that for? Why is it done like that? That's my question. It's not like it's just Ricky Martin who is the only one telling everyone something that they already knew (and really didn't give a fat rat's ass about). It's happened repeatedly. Let's take a look at some of the most un-shocking coming outs, shall we?

We'll start with Lance Bass. Gay. Uh-huh. We knew.

Then there was Clay Aiken. "Yes, I'm gay." Yes, we know.

Sean Hayes. Please. Could he be any gayer? Nuh-uh. Is it any wonder he was so good on Will & Grace?

David Hyde Pierce. Yep. Gay.

Figure skater Rudy Galindo. So gay.

Adam Lambert. Shocking. Or not. He's gay.

Martina Navratilova. A good, manly tennis player. Very gay.

Billie Jean King. Another good tennis player. Equally as gay.

Ellen DeGeneres. Still gay.

Rosie O'Donnell. Gay. (And seemingly angry.)

Tell me which one of those you were shocked by. Oh, wait. Let me guess. NONE of them? That's right. Now tell me which one of those really made some sort of difference in your life after they came out? Oh, wait. Let me guess again. NONE of them? That's right, too.

Can't we make some sort of a deal with...well, whatever department would handle the sort of deal I'm about to propose? Can't we make a deal that unless it's going to be a huge bombshell that someone is gay, that we just don't worry about it? (I'd really like to see it not matter all together, but I'll admit that I do enjoy a good bombshell from time to time. I don't want to lose that form of entertainment for myself.)

What would be an example of a bombshell gay announcement. Um, I'd say if either President Barry or his lovely wife, Michelle, came out as gay, that would warrant a little ink in the news. Actually, any former US President who wanted to leap out of the closet would qualify for bombshell. Arnold Schwarzenegger would qualify. Stephen Hawking would qualify (but probably only due to sheer logistics). Vladimir Putin would qualify. (That guy is a man's man if there ever was one. He might be trying to hide something, but I don't think so. I think he's about as straight as one can get. And I'm not just saying that because he'd probably strangle to death anyone who implied otherwise.) People like that would qualify. Ricky Martin? Yeah, not so much.

moreless

The Most Obvious Information You'll Read All Day

News is good. We like news. We don't like news that is not news. Is Lindsay Lohan always news? Always? No. Is Lindsay Lohan without a shirt on making out with a chick who is much hotter than Samantha Ronson always news? Yeah, pretty much. (Hey! In order to make this particular analogy work, I needed someone hotter than Sam! What's wrong with that? It's two chicks hypothetically making out! I don't think it's time for complaining!) But where I get stuck is when the obvious (aka the 'not news') makes its way into the news stream or is presented as news.

Case in point (also known as 'that which irritated me today') would be an article in the New York Times bearing the title "In Some Swimming Pools, a Nasty Intestinal Parasite". And they're not referring to that one neighbor kid down the street, either. It goes on to talk about how "Reports of gastrointestinal illness from use of public pools and water parks have risen sharply in recent years" because of a"...microscopic organism that lives in human feces" which spread illnesses "...when people ingest contaminated water." Ewww.

It's something called cryptosporidium. (Things that live in places like the human rectum usually have names like that. There's always an -ium or an -ius at the end.) The reason it can live in chlorinated water is because it's a smart little thing that has a little egglike shell on the outside of it which allows it to hang out for as long as 10 days in the water. It's as if Superman were not vulnerable to kryptonite (and if he lived in poo). In 2007 there were 31 recreational water outbreaks (ie, public swimming pools) which involved 3,726 unfortunate individuals. In 2004 there were 7 outbreaks with 567 people involved. They don't know if there's more of the poo-bug in the pools or if the increase is just because we've turned into a panic ridden society and there is more reporting of the incidents. (Oh, I'm paraphrasing there just a little bit.)

So let's just use our collective noggins to noodle through this here. The crypto butt bug lives in feces. Illnesses are spread when people ingest water the the crypto butt bug has been swimming in. Thus, the crypto butt bug has to find its way into the water. (We are assuming that the water is intended to be free of any and all forms of feces. You know. Because people are swimming in it!) This can be avoided by not having poo in the pool. Solved! Our work is done here! Who's up for a drink!

Not so fast. In the article, a one Michele C. Hlavsa of the CDC tells us "People should not swim or allow their children to swim when they have diarrhea." ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: And newspapers wonder why their revenue is dropping. I was reading this online, but had I picked up my morning paper from the very end of the driveway (because for some reason, newspaper delivery folks have de-volved to where their arm cannot fling a paper more than a foot and a half from the curb) and read that helpful hint I'd be asking a few questions. Let me get this straight. I am paying for this subscription. Therefore, by including content such as "Don't go in a pool when your bowel control is questionable or non-existent" the publisher of said newspaper is assuming that I WANT that sort of information, that I must have ASKED for that sort of information as implied by my subscription to their lovely periodical. Not only is it assumed that I wanted and asked for that information, it is also implied that I wanted it SO badly that I was willing to PAY FOR IT!! Newsflash: I DON'T! I DIDN'T! AND I'M NOT!

Seriously? That's the best you've got for me? Who is that for? I don't think that information is for folks for read the New York Freaking Times! At least I certainly hope it isn't.

Oh, but as if that isn't bad enough, as I continued reading I realized how much they had hyped up this 'story' to make it appear worse than it is. We read about the increase in outbreaks and in people affected to be a difference of 3,159 more people in 2007 than in 2004. One has to wonder if there is anyone out there who is NOT swimming in poo! But later on they quote a one Utah epidemiologist Robert T. Rolfs who says that "One of the largest recent crypto outbreaks occurred in Utah in 2007. There were 2,000 confirmed cases". Wait. What? ONE of those outbreaks has 2,000 people affected? So, excluding that there were only 1,726 people affected by 30 instances? Well, that averages out to 57 people per incident, while in 2005 the average was 81 people per incident. So really, the average number of people affected by each instance of this has decreased. There are several reasons that could be speculated about as to why this is and some of them might even be relevant. Then again, some may not, as Dr. Rolfs noted that the aforementioned large outbreak was eventually slowed by "...temporarily barring all children 5 and younger from pools" and that the outbreak subsided "...after the swimming season."

Really?! AFTER swimming season, when there were no people in the public swimming pool that was affected, that is when the outbreak subsided? REALLY?! Shocking! Aren't the methods of modern science grand?! Ah, yes, it's a great time to be alive. Please kill me.

Once again my beloved statistics were brutally misused and assaulted by some gung-ho reporter (probably should be dung-ho for this story) who seemed intent on terrorizing the public by insinuating that feces in public swimming pools is on the rise (literally in most instances) and we should all be concerned about it! Oh, pipe down. (Believe me when I say that yes, feces in swimming pools IS a concern and SHOULD be a concern of all. Is it a NEW concern? Good Lord, I hope not.)

Did you notice how I just sort of breezed over the other insultingly obvious point in this non-news story? The part about ingesting water that's contaminated with the crypto butt bug is what makes you sick, so don't do that? Really? So, just so I understand, because it's a difficult concept to grasp, DON'T drink water that has feces in it? Because if I'm really thirsty, I'll just head right on over to the local swimming pool and just dunk my head right in the water and start gulping away. So, don't do that? I better write that down. Where's my pen?

It's like I'm reading an edition of the Helmeted Folks Times or something. Another 'need to know' tidbit they share with us is "never use the pool as a toilet." Again, GOOD TO KNOW! But then, for some reason that is completely unfathomable to me, they tell us "Children in diapers require vigilant attention."

::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Why, yes. Children in diapers DO require vigilant attention. Yes, they do. ALL THE TIME! Not JUST at the freaking pool! But hey, if your kid is in diapers, should they be in the pool at all? Well, I guess, if you're going by the implication of that sentence and the prior golden advice of "don't swim with diarrhea", that seems to imply that it's FINE! Just be VIGILANT! After all, they might be in diapers, but do they have diarrhea? If not, then just be VIGILANT! It's a wonder there were ONLY 31 instances of this happening in 2007.

Other ways you can "protect yourself"? (Avoid people that write articles such at the one in the NY Times, for starters.) "Water in pools should not be cloudy, tiles should not be slick and filtration machines should hum in the background." Got that? So if you can't see the bottom of the pool and you're slipping on tiles covered in fecal matter, don't swim there. I know! I know! It sounds crazy! But after all, this was in the New York Times. They must know what they're talking about.

And so do I. That's why I'm pretty sure we're doomed. DOOOOOMMMMED! Happy swimming.

moreless