Humor

A Smile or Two

by

Entertainment on a lazy summer weekend: Harry apologizes for the crusades; since he posts today, he did not “fall into a pit full of spikes” and “die miserably, howling like an animal.” BlameBush sees Bush as issuing a pre-emptive strike on Hilary:

Hundreds of breathtakingly beautiful homes destroyed by landslides, which were caused by excessive rains, which were caused by global warming, which is a direct result of Bush’s refusal to sign Kyoto. A score of big money donors to the DNC are now homeless, and on the eve of a Hollywood fundraiser for Hillary, no less.

Manalo has found a picture of Lagerfeld before he sold his soul. And the Crack Young Staff of the Hatemonger’s Quarterly have hired a clairvoyant; this “Rent-a-Prophet” projects “Unfortunate Statements Soon To Be Stated by Stately Howard Dean.” Chris Muir figures Amnesty International’s aim is to get “close enough for government work.”(10) And notes that Dean may be afraid Rove is going to take away his “medical stash” (9). (The link is always to newest but calendar at the bottom gives access to previous ones.)
ScrappleFace’s wit is deepened as he talk of duty to the press. And Iowahawk asks for prayers & thoughts.

by

Exhausted blogger hatchlings rest on the sand as two of their nest mates fight to emerge from their shells.

Mineralogy and Economics

by

According to this story, a woman’s weight has an adverse effect on family income. The effect is attributed largely (so to speak) to the marriage market and the ability to attract high-status, high-income mates. There is no corresponding difference in family income based on men’s weight (as originally formulated by Prof. Joe Jackson, “looks don’t count for much”). The study failed to credit Townsend’s Law of Mineralogy, which states that the carat weight of an engagement diamond varies indirectly with body mass index.

Update

The study’s authors get a sypathetic hearing in today’s Boston Globe, where they describe men’s preference for lighter-weight wives as “discrimination” and “objectification.” Leaving aside the voluntary nature of marriage (see Nozick), the authors do not see a corresponding problem with the converse: “discrimination” against men of slender means. It is not clear whether whatever redistribution scheme they would use to overcome this injustice would involve the transfer of money or avoirdupois.