The Daily Punk

April 22, 2008

(ShenaigaNation Edition)

1. When I Called Hillary “Pinocchi-Ho” I Meant I Consider Her To Be a Lying Whore.

I took some heat for calling Hillary a “Ho.” I think people thought I was using “ho” in the popular context, to mean a female. That is derogatory and I would never engage in such a practice. In fact when I called her a “Ho” I was using that word in the “derivative of the word whore” sense. That is, I believe she is a lying whore.

Don’t get all freaked out, there is a very solid basis for my statement. Here is the definition of a whore:

whore. n.

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person who compromises principles for personal gain.

So the first two don’t apply. I doubt she’s promiscuous — gross — and I don’t believe she is a prostitute.

But the third definition fits.

How else can you explain the fact that she not only accepted — but actively sought — the endorsement of the Pittsburgh Mellon-Tribune, a conservative newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife? In case you haven’t heard of him, Scaife was the primary backer of The American Spectator, whose Arkansas Project set out to find facts about Clinton. Among the facts the Project attempted to prove:

  • That Bill harassed Paula Jones.
  • That the Clintons collaborated with the CIA to run a drug smuggling operation out of the town of Mena, Arkansas.
  • That Clinton had arranged for the murder of Vince Foster to cover up Whitewater.

There are a whole bunch more but they hardly bear repeating. The point is Hillary once hated this man. Indeed, her statements about the “vast right wing conspiracy” were based on the work and acts of Scaife.

But apparently the immense pain and personal anguish she suffered at the hands of this man was irrelevant if she could get something from him. So she put aside her hatred of the man and sought the endorsement.

That’s whorish behavior.

2. Earth Day!

Hey it’s Earth Day.

3.  Dude Stuck in Elevator

New Yorker Nicholas White was working late. He got in the elevator to take a “smoke break” and was stuck in the thing for the next 41 hours. Apparently no one knew he was there. Here’s a great time-lapse video of him in the elevator.

Check out a few things as you watch it:

  1. Dude doesn’t ever seem to go to the bathroom.
  2. He never untucks his shirt.
  3. Somehow he manages to not go completely berserk and tear the elevator apart. Me? I’d have broken that armrest bar off in the first fifteen minutes. This guy? Chill.

4.  I Made Another Absurd Movie

This one has some sweet Teen Wolf love.

5.  “Top Scientists” Name “Life Changing” Books.

New Scientist Magazine asked a number of “top scientists” to name the book that changed his/her life. Okay make sure you understand what I’m saying here — “Changed Their Lives.”

Here’s the list:

  1. Farthest North (Modern Library Exploration) – Steve Jones, geneticist. This is a “recovered” book; meaning it was out-of-print for a number of years. It’s about one of the early explorers to the North Pole.  Okay, that sounds moderately interesting.
  2. Art of the Soluble – V. S. Ramachandran, neuroscientist.  This is a collection of essays about the scientific process. It’s called the art of the soluble so evidently there is a lot of dissolving of materials in water.
  3. Animal Liberation – Jane Goodall, primatologist. The first “animal rights” book that exposed the unethical practices employed by the scientific community against animals. What did you expect Jane Goodall to be interested in? Chick loves apes man.
  4. Foundation (Foundation Novels) – Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist. It’s some sci-fi nerdery written by Isaac Asimov.
  5. Alice in Wonderland – Alison Gopnik, developmental psychologist. You know this one. Brutal.
  6. One Two Three . . . Infinity: Facts and Speculations of Science – Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist. Okay this is the rare book on here that might be relatively interesting. Here’s one of the many positive reviews: “There’s … magic in these pages. Gamow was one of the greatest of 20th century physicists, and at the same time, a great teacher whose passion for the sheer fun of math and science was communicated in his books …”
  7. The Idea of a Social Science: And its Relation to Philosophy – Harry Collins, sociologist of science. God, who even knows about some of this crap. There aren’t any reviews on it and the title makes my head hurt. The “official review” says this is a “brave and interesting little book.” Well at least it’s short.
  8. Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables – Peter Atkins, chemist.  Okay, wait a minute…this is a goddamn reference book! This guy’s life was changed by a reference book?! Holy smoke. Let’s go ahead and jump to the unfair conclusion that Doctor Atkins doesn’t get laid much.
  9. The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book about a Vast Memory – Oliver Sacks, neurologist. Okay this looks pretty cool: “A distinguished Soviet psychologist’s study…[of a] young man who was discovered to have a literally limitless memory and eventually became a professional mnemonist. Experiments and interviews over the years showed that his memory was based on synesthesia (turning sounds into vivid visual imagery), that he could forget anything only by an act of will, that he solved problems in a peculiar crablike fashion that worked, and that he was handicapped intellectually because he could not make discriminations, and because every abstraction and idea immediately dissolved into an image for him. It is all fascinating and delightful.”
  10. A Mathematician’s Apology – Marcus du Sautoy, mathematician. An essay by an old mathematician who recognizes his cognitive functions are kaput. This could be interesting but it’s out of print.
  11. The Leopard – Susan Greenfield, neurophysiologist. This looks kind of cool. The scientists score another hit (albeit another obscure hit): “Giuseppe di Lampedusa, also an astronomer and a Sicilian prince, was 58 when he started to write The Leopard, though he had had it in his mind for 25 years. E. M. Forster called his work “one of the great lonely books.” What renders it so beautiful and so discomfiting is its creator’s grasp of human frailty…”
  12. Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior (Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series) – Frans de Waal, psychologist and ethologist. This isn’t about Darwin. It’s about how other authors have reacted to their contemporary society’s ideas and acceptable of Darwin. You don’t want to read this just move on…
  13. Catch-22 / The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe – Lawrence Krauss, physicist. Oh lord. You know Catch-22. The other one is about the Big Bang. Or, specifically, the first three minutes of the Big Bang. One can only wonder at the excitement that awaits the reader in that book.
  14. William James : Writings 1902-1910 : The Varieties of Religious Experience / Pragmatism / A Pluralistic Universe / The Meaning of Truth / Some Problems of Philosophy / Essays (Library of America) – Daniel Everett, linguist. Why did I undertake the task of finding links for all of these damn books? This is boring the hell out of me.
  15. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? – Chris Frith, neuroscientist. This guy’s life was changed by “Blade Runner.”
  16. The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal – Elaine Morgan, author of The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. This woman is a real fan of the ape’s I tell you what.
  17. King Solomon’s Ring: New Light on Animal Ways (Routledge Classics) – Marian Stamp Dawkins, Zoologist.  Five reviews, five five-star reviews. Sounds pretty decent actually.

6. ShenanigaNation

People are asking why exit polls are so skewed in these primaries.  Here’s a guess: I think Obama does better in the exits because of the “shenanigan quotient.” For example, ditto-head Republicans switch sides, waltz in and vote for the weaker candidate on the other’s side, then tell the exit-pollers whatever they like.

ShenanigaNation I tell you.

This is another of the problems that come from a prolonged, unnecessary primary. In addition to the expense and discord, the GOP’s early finish makes the Democrats’ returns less accurate. If the GOP race was still under contention, it’s possible a true “Democrat” vote would have revealed a candidate by now. But there’s no party leadership, the acrimony drags on, and the actual outcome is decided by Republicans.


Isn’t this fixable? What harm is there in requiring people to declare their party six months in advance or before any state holds its primaries?  The other races could, of course, be left open to late registration but wouldn’t that be more likely to produce a truly “Democratic” outcome?