the oldies and the goodies

this topic comes courtesy of mer and neva, who both forwarded/posted this link:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/02/16/the-case-for-an-older-woman/

neva, taking the glass half-full approach, refers to it as "OK cupid's (statistically-based) argument for older women." of course another way to look at it is "OK cupid's collection of statistics showing that guys are predisposed against older women."

that said, i enjoyed reading it in combination with OK cupid's earlier post:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/01/20/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/

then scan down to the section entitled "the cleavage shot," which states:

Like the Ab Shot, the Cleavage Shot is very successful, drawing 12.9 new contacts per month, or 49% more than average. But unlike the Abs Shot, this positive effect actually trends against the effects of age.

As you would expect, women get fewer and fewer new messages as they age (which is a topic for another whole post!), but this decrease in new contacts is substantially slower for women with cleavage pics. A 32 year-old woman showing her body gets only 1 less message a month than the equivalent 18 year-old; an older woman not showing off gets 4 messages less, a large relative fall-off in popularity.

so, i have two takeaways from this combined info. one, if i ever resurrect my OK cupid profile, the girls should be on display to counterbalance my "aging." second, and more generally, i should invest in some more revealing clothes!

back to reality

got back from kaimana yesterday, to snow and cold and apparently my gangster neighborhood:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/north-clybourn-shooting-near-north-side-st-elizabeth-hospital.html

seriously, that's like right in front of piece!

superbowl round-up

i missed most of the superbowl, so i did some catching up today. some articles i liked in in two categories:

(1) the football (specifically, great color on the onside kick):  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/02/08/mmqb.superbowl/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin ("So I just figured I better hang onto it for dear life," he said. "The Colts were punching at it and grabbing for it, trying to get it out. But I didn't care if they broke all my fingers. There was absolutely no way in the world I was going to let go of that ball. That was our ball.")

(2) the ads:
  http://www.slate.com/id/2243904/pagenum/all/ ("Ad Report Card has long considered the melding of practical sales pitch with uplifting emotion the holy grail of advertising, and here's a prime example. Frankly, I'm getting a little of sick of Google doing everything right.")

red is still bad

a follow up on status of a few months ago:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013447.php (the supposed "west coast surplus of men")

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?ref=fashion&pagewanted=all (the supposed dearth of men on college campuses)

oh, the irony

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/thoughtful_nation_questioning ("After much thought, I am left with the question: What if both teams are succeeding by striving? And what if both teams actually have conflicting concepts of what constitutes their opposition—not a mere football team, but an adversary physical, metaphysical, or perhaps even emotional? If we agree that this is the case, then each team may have its own unique definition of success independent of the other, a definition rendering any so-called 'final' score moot.")

http://www.upa.org/ultimate/sotg/sotg.shtml ("And in the midst of the war, knowing only one of you can win, you play against your opponent the way you wish they'd play against you: with everything you've got left, respecting their efforts and their calls, because you know that no matter how bad they want to win, they're going to do it fairly. And when it's all over, when no matter what the outcome, you shake hands, look your opponent in the eye with a stare of mutual respect and say 'nice D', that's Spirit of the Game.")

it's funny because it's true

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1800501 (will ring true with all the boarders AND skiers out there)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY (can anyone say it any better than homer?)

tell me how you really feel

earlier today slate posted an article about the proposed change in tax brackets and how people making $250k obviously ARE rich but don't FEEL rich:

http://www.slate.com/id/2243529/

at the time i read it, the topmost comment was by "amy" who had this to say:

People who are in the" rich man" tax brackets but complain the loudest about feeling poor are all those saps who have children. I understand, Moms and Dads feel compelled to provide the best care and schooling and violin lessons and $18 an hour nannies so that at the end of the month there is nothing left for living, parents stare into skinny checkbooks, fret about the price of organic foods, wonder how they will ever retire at 55! Blah blah.

Based on what I am reading in this comment section the biggest mistake a person can make is having children - if the goal of a person is to feel financially secure now and into the future. Also, much to my surprise, research has repeatedly shown that people with children are not happier or more fulfilled than those of us who chose to remain spawn free. So perhaps the baby mistake was absolute.

Who cares if abstract construct like "society" or I have read "the species" fall away after we have gone? Why should I suffer in my short life for some abstract concept like "society"? Japan has a negative birthrate, and their society is intact. Don't worry, dumb f*ckers will have kids, and those kids might not be stupid. It happens, I have seen it - smart kids from stone stupid parents. Society will move on without $250k'ers having kids.

If you want kids, have them. I don't begrudge any parent the government baby deduction and I wouldn't mind if society used less money "fighting terror" or whatever, and instead funneled more tax dollars to fund better services for families (not like outrageous shit like, $18 nannies and violin lessons though). But please, oh please, don't complain once you have the kids. I had so many vibrant exciting intellectual friends once, now they all have kids and are perfectly dull.

i've definitely heard this sentiment before, but never quite as stridently. it's quite a spectacular rant, even if you think she's a "dumb f*cker" with a "stone stupid" point of view.

slimmer better faster stronger?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/fashion/04best.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all

this article is super relevant to two experiences i've had in fitness training over the last couple years.

first, i'm well aware of the correlation between losing weight and gaining speed. hellyer even described it once as the difference between just running and running with a weight vest. according to this article, there's a point in which the trade-off doesn't work any more. that seems like a great point to generally work towards, without being too maniacal about it.

second, a gym (xsport) recently made me go through a rather elaborate fitness test in order to try the gym for a month free. the test is definitely slanted towards making you feel like a giant fat-ass so you sign up on the spot for a personal trainer. however, my results didn't fit that story as well as they'd like. basically, they started off by informing me that according to my height and weight i had to lose 22 lbs of fat to basically be in average shape. however, that theory broke down when they took my VO2max, which was apparently in "marathon runner range" (i wish they'd given me the exact number so i could know if that had any truth to it). basically, i take both figures with a huge grain of salt, but it was interesting to see one theory derailed by the other. again, i'm sure my VO2max would improve with some additional weight loss, but certainly 22 lbs of fat is not in the cards.

it goes both ways

being overeducated holds you back in love? well love hurts too.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243179/ ("lady lawyers" = spinsters?)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100129&sportCat=nfl (hilariously tragic emails from vikings fans)

two pop culture medical debates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/28/g-spot-france-sex-gynaecology (french vs. british medical debate on the g spot, make sure to scan the comments!)

http://www.slate.com/id/2243218/ (a medical counterpoint to the upcoming tebow superbowl commercial)

the halliburton rape case

fascinating case, from the sensational underlying facts, to the courts' response, to the legislative response to that, and the popular response to that! two great backgrounder articles here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2242792/ ("I asked Franken what he thought of KBR's latest efforts to trash Jones in public for her refusal to be trashed by them in private. Here's what he had to say: 'You know where a great place to try arguments is? In court. But they've spent five years fighting against her attempts to have her day there. It seems odd that they wouldn't want to explain their side in the courtroom, since they're willing to in the media.'").

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/kbr-calls-jamie-leigh-jones-liar ("It's a curious argument to make in a petition asking to keep the case proceedings confidential (a benefit of mandatory arbitration that KBR claims many assault victims really appreciate). After all, if KBR has been wrongly accused in such public forums as Congress and the media, wouldn't it be better off fighting the charges someplace it could be publicly vindicated? And if Jones' story is really false, why has KBR waited five years to respond? KBR must be pretty worried that lots of other women are getting in line to sue now that Jones has made it easier for them, a potentially expensive disaster. Threatening to disparage an alleged rape victims seems more scare tactic rather than good legal strategy. But KBR's legal strategy has been pretty loony from the get-go. Rather than try to defend an indefensible arbitration system in a case with a compelling victim, KBR would have done far better to simply pay Jones to shut up and go away a long time ago, before she won Al Franken's heart. At this point, even if it wins the court battle, the company is going to lose the PR fight.")

hot links, get your hot links

as is clear to most who know me, i read a TON, both online and in actual old-fashioned book form. when i'm engaged by something online, i usually stick the link in my gchat status. that's great for getting the word out, but unfortunately, that link disappears into the internets as soon as i put the next one up with no record that it ever caught my fancy.

i figured it might be interesting to point people to a link at this address, instead of the link itself, so i have a record going forward of what i considered the issues of the day. and if i happen to lose interest in this process the way i have with other blogs in the past, no harm no foul.